• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atlas Shrugged movie

Will you go see the Atlas Shrugged movie?

  • Total voters
    37
I thought the book was good. :shrug:


The movie though, would probably be boring... :lol:
 
samsmart said:
To be fair, though, the reason why that is probably has to do more because she was trying to illustrate it via fictional novels rather than through more practical essays.

Which is why I probably won't see the movie and won't read the book. It's far, far too utopian for me. Such, Rand's philosophy can work when you have the ideal people. But we don't have ideal people, just like we don't live on an ideal world, or in an ideal universe. So I'm very much a critic of idealist philosophies. Give me realpolitik any day.
Click to expand...

Actually, its quite the contrary as most people act as self interested individuals, in almost all manners of life.
It's getting them to realize it, that is more of the point.
 
megaprogman said:
I guess I am a more practical person than she is. I prefer to deal with real things whenever possible.
Click to expand...

It's a story dude.

Books are meant as an escape or to express ideas through narratives.
I don't prefer fiction books, just not my thing but some works of fiction are worth reading.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's a story dude.

Books are meant as an escape or to express ideas through narratives.
I don't prefer fiction books, just not my thing but some works of fiction are worth reading.
Click to expand...

True, it is a story. However writing style has very much to do with whether a particular audience will enjoy it. Theres a reason every writing class in the world says "consider your target audience"
 
Andalublue said:
I don't think you have a firm grasp on the fact that supply-and-demand are theoretical forces which do not and cannot operate untrammeled and in a free environment. There are far too many forces at work that distort the operation of s-and-d for it ever to be applicable to a living economic environment.
Click to expand...

Utter tripe, people respond to incentives. And there are practical uses for understanding the types of actions that effect supply and demand. We know what happens to a market when we increase costs, and smart businessmen use this understanding to their advantage in pricing etc... The same applies to the cost of employment and the value a job brings to a company.

Andalublue said:
Not for the workers. A decent wage = success for the workers and that is often in conflict with delivering maximum optimal profit. In which case your libertarian society merely becomes one engulfed in class warfare, pretty much like the current state of affairs.
Click to expand...

If you don't find a job worth its wage, find another because someone else would be glad to have it.

Andalublue said:
A society just waiting for the inequalities of income to become so huge that society explodes into civil war again. Nice prospect.
Click to expand...

I find paying extortion money via taxes/social services/income redistribution to those who would otherwise seize wealth through force a far worse prospect. Let them come for me, I'll be prepared.

More importantly, what makes you so certain that civil war would be inevitable should the productive leave everyone else behind (in income and standard of living)? Do you truly think standards of living for the relatively poor would go down under pure capitalism? I believe they would go up for everyone, but MUCH faster for some, so much so that by comparison, though the relatively poor would be better off, they would look 3rd world compared to what the unbridled rich would be capable of.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's your take on it, I've never read it but I understand what the purpose of the story and characters were about.

They were supposed to be "super men/women."
Doing things that are unbelievable to tell a tail with an idea behind it.
Not much different than Vonnegut and his "Harrison Bergeron" short story.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I also dislike Superman as a character. I simply see no appeal in perfect beings.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Having an ideal philosophy and living in an non ideal world does not make someone a hypocrite.

"Hypocrisy is an unconscious self-contradiction: a state of incongruence between one's professed beliefs and feelings and one's actual beliefs and feelings, or an application of a criticism to others that one does not apply to oneself."

"Hypocrisy is not simply a lie, saying something which one knows to be false. Neither is it simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches."

Hypocrisy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're applying your form of ethics to Objectivism and then saying that debunks it?
Click to expand...

To hypocrisy, you can call it what you will, but she consistently claimed that those who accepted public assistance didn't deserve to live. By her own logic, she did not deserve to live.

I'm not applying my own form of ethics. I'm applying logic. I'm saying that Objectivism is unethical for the same reasons racism is. Now, if you believe that racism is ethical, then fine, by your definition of ethics Objectivism may indeed be ethical, but most agree that treating one group of people worse for purely arbitrary reasons is wrong. Objectivism is the practice of treating a group of people worse for arbitrary reasons (i.e. they aren't you).
 
megaprogman said:
I guess I am a more practical person than she is. I prefer to deal with real things whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Watch her Donahue interviews, she goes into how she favors Romanticism in ART, and how this has nothing do to with her behavior in reality.
 
TheBook said:
Fair enough. I also dislike Superman as a character. I simply see no appeal in perfect beings.
Click to expand...

Perfect beings? How does this apply to Ayn Rand's heroes? I hardly consider an inventor, or a woman capable of running a railroad "perfection;" Just heroic.

TheBook said:
To hypocrisy, you can call it what you will, but she consistently claimed that those who accepted public assistance didn't deserve to live. By her own logic, she did not deserve to live.

I'm not applying my own form of ethics. I'm applying logic.
Click to expand...

Evidence for your claim that she used public assistance?

TheBook said:
I'm saying that Objectivism is unethical for the same reasons racism is. Now, if you believe that racism is ethical, then fine, by your definition of ethics Objectivism may indeed be ethical, but most agree that treating one group of people worse for purely arbitrary reasons is wrong. Objectivism is the practice of treating a group of people worse for arbitrary reasons (i.e. they aren't you).
Click to expand...

Worse is a comparative term, treating people worse than what? Just how are you equating selfishness with treating others badly? She advocates treating others well for purely selfish reasons.

You obviously don't understand objectivism.
 
Last edited:
TheBook said:
Fair enough. I also dislike Superman as a character. I simply see no appeal in perfect beings.
Click to expand...

That's fine, I'm not trying to twist you arm one way or another.
Just putting it into perspective is all.

TheBook said:
To hypocrisy, you can call it what you will, but she consistently claimed that those who accepted public assistance didn't deserve to live. By her own logic, she did not deserve to live.
Click to expand...

Those programs aren't self described as public assistance though, most proponents call them "social insurance."

Where you contribute and receive a benefit.
Did or did she not pay for Medicare and Social Security through her taxes?

TheBook said:
I'm not applying my own form of ethics. I'm applying logic. I'm saying that Objectivism is unethical for the same reasons racism is. Now, if you believe that racism is ethical, then fine, by your definition of ethics Objectivism may indeed be ethical, but most agree that treating one group of people worse for purely arbitrary reasons is wrong. Objectivism is the practice of treating a group of people worse for arbitrary reasons (i.e. they aren't you).
Click to expand...

See Lachean's response.
 
Lachean said:
Worse is a compartive term, treating people worse than what? Just how are you confusing selfishness with treating others badly? She advocates treating others well for purely selfish reasons.
Click to expand...

I will use your tactic of defining Selfishness:

Selfishness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Selfishness is harming someone else in order to help oneself"

But even if she merely means excessive self-interest, that is still immoral for the same reasons I have stated previously. Placing one's own needs or desires above those of others involves discrimination between oneself and others based on arbitrary factors. As I said, it is unethical for the same reason as racism, even if through the course of it you do something ethically good, you are still doing so for unethical reasons.
 
It mainly depends on the reviews, but if I have the $$$ and time, then ya, I'd go see it for kicks
 
Lachean said:
Watch her Donahue interviews, she goes into how she favors Romanticism in ART, and how this has nothing do to with her behavior in reality.
Click to expand...

Art is a means to communicate an idea. However, if that idea does not reflect reality, but rather something humans aren't and will never be, then while it may be good for art, it sucks at convincing people of anything. I don't care if its art, I read books to learn something and to gain insight into human nature, Atlas is fundamentally unable to provide me with either, which means she failed as an author if I was her intended audience.
 
TheBook said:
I will use your tactic of defining Selfishness:

Selfishness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Selfishness is harming someone else in order to help oneself"

But even if she merely means excessive self-interest, that is still immoral for the same reasons I have stated previously. Placing one's own needs or desires above those of others involves discrimination between oneself and others based on arbitrary factors. As I said, it is unethical for the same reason as racism, even if through the course of it you do something ethically good, you are still doing so for unethical reasons.
Click to expand...

Selfishness and self interest are 2 easily confusable terms, both have different specific meanings and are typically used as synonyms when they aren't.

Objectivism uses self interest as it's defining term.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Selfishness and self interest are 2 easily confusable terms, both have different specific meanings and are typically used as synonyms when they aren't.

Objectivism uses self interest as it's defining term.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. As I said, my argument still stands.

On a lighter note, I'm surprised they managed to find enough people in "Liberal Hollywood" to actually make this movie.
 
TheBook said:
I will use your tactic of defining Selfishness:

Selfishness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Selfishness is harming someone else in order to help oneself"
Click to expand...

My tactic of defining selfishness? What you quoted was selfishness in game theory, you completely ignored the actual defintion. This is my tactic of defining selfishness, its called quoting Webster:

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
Click to expand...

TheBook said:
But even if she merely means excessive self-interest, that is still immoral for the same reasons I have stated previously. Placing one's own needs or desires above those of others involves discrimination between oneself and others based on arbitrary factors.
Click to expand...

And how is it not discrimination if you place the needs of others above your own? That is self-descrimination without purpose. Why are the needs of others a moral imperative but yours are not? Are you not also someone else's "others"?

What sense does it make for individuals to sacrifice their own needs for the sake of others needs, when economically speaking we're all better off if we act in our own rational self interest?

Because when other people aren't taking care of themselves, their needs increase.

TheBook said:
As I said, it is unethical for the same reason as racism, even if through the course of it you do something ethically good, you are still doing so for unethical reasons.
Click to expand...

What a blatant contradiction in your logic: ethically bad = unethical
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
And how is it not discrimination if you place the needs of others above your own? That is self-descrimination without purpose. Why are the needs of others a moral imperative but yours are not? Are you not also someone else's "others"?
Click to expand...

This is a strawman. You are attributing an argument to me that I never made.

Lachean said:
What sense does it make for individuals to sacrifice their own needs for the sake of others needs, when economically speaking we're all better off if we act in our own rational self interest?
Click to expand...

We are discussing ethics, not economics. Rarely is a productive economic theory entirely ethical. But a quick note, there's no indication that we are better off economically when we only act in our own self-interest, or at the very least none that you have supplied.

Lachean said:
Because when other people aren't taking care of themselves, their needs increase.
Click to expand...

I really don't know what this is in reference to.

Lachean said:
What a blatant contradiction in your logic: ethically bad = unethical
Click to expand...

Call it what you will. Immoral, unethical, etc.

I don't see where I have contradicted myself. Please quote it and explain why it is a contradiction. I have done so in explaining the illogicality of considering racism unethical but Objectivism to be an ethically valid set of ideals.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Actually, its quite the contrary as most people act as self interested individuals, in almost all manners of life.
It's getting them to realize it, that is more of the point.
Click to expand...

How much of Ayn Rand's fiction illustrate how her philosophy treats those who are mentally retarded or suffer from mental disorders such as schizophrenia?
 
samsmart said:
How much of Ayn Rand's fiction illustrate how her philosophy treats those who are mentally retarded or suffer from mental disorders such as schizophrenia?
Click to expand...

Well it depends on how much you personally value treatment for those individuals.

Objectivism ethics are typically misunderstood because people always associate, profit and value, with money and material possessions.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
Finally, part 1 of the Atlas Shrugged movie will be in theaters on April 15.

Will you go see it?
Click to expand...

Not a chance.

Look at how horribly wrong the movie people made The Lord of the Rings. And that was an interesting book with interesting characters.

Can you imagine how bad Atlas Shrugged will be, considering the cartoon nature of Rand's characterizations? Not to mention that there's any chance in hell of them even getting the anti-socialism message right.

It'll be out on DVD someday, and I'll be showing respect to the $ by not wasting any $ in the theaters.
 
digsbe said:
Could someone brief me on the beliefs/arguments of Ayn Rand? I haven't read his book nor have I heard much about him.
Click to expand...

Take the short course. Bypass both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and pick up We the Living. It's a lot shorter and more solidly grounded in reality.
 
digsbe said:
Upon reading about her (thanks for the links btw). I think she was crazy. And no, I will not see this movie.
Click to expand...

You should still read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, just so you can see what drives the pinkos crazy.
 
digsbe said:
Unregulated capitalism quickly leads to oppressive monopolies, a wide range of rich and poor, and abuse of the workers by their employed mega corporations. Capitalism is good only when properly regulated.
Click to expand...

Oppressive (ie, coercive) monopolies can only exist by abusing the powers of violence reserved to the governemnt. In a capitalist society government is denied that excess of power.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Randians are a blight on libertarianism. Valuing liberty is one thing, valuing selfishness is another thing altogether.
Click to expand...

Valueing selfishness is everything. One cannot have liberty if one does not defend one's freedom selfishly.

You should try reading the Virtue of Selfishness before whining about it. Besides, your posts on other threads make it perfectly clear that you're a statist, not a libertarian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom