tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post875674940804341268..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: The Biggest Bomb Yet.Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80364803364151268592015-08-12T13:58:35.432-07:002015-08-12T13:58:35.432-07:003) Unimaginative directing. Look at the word "...3) Unimaginative directing. Look at the word "movie"; what root word do you see? The word "MOVE", right? So the last thing a viewer wants to see is a series of STATIC scenes, e.g., a dinner party with people standing around and talking; followed by a scene with two people in a car, sitting around and talking; followed by another scene with someone sitting behind a desk talking to someone sitting in front of a desk. Um, GET IT? Standing and talking, followed by sitting and talking, followed by eating dinner and talking, followed by piloting an airplane and talking, followed by talking on the telephone.<br /><br />**<br />That's right; the AS movies were un-cinematic. "Pictures of people talking," to use Hitchcock's words. But as for camera movement per se, the fad these days is terrible. Too many movies look like they were made by dumb kids on speed. Every camera movement ought to be purposeful; camera movement should communicate something specific, otherwise the energy is dissipated and the viewer only gets exhausted, not interested. For example, I can't stand it when every shot of people sitting at a table is filmed from a dolly; such a shot is exactly how I *don't* perceive reality unless I'm walking around the table. (Short-dollying everything is what community college students aspiring to work for the History Channel consider "adding production values.")<br /><br />That said, the AS trilogy is dreck. But not because you don't get motion sickness while watching it. (Full disclosure: I only watched 5 minutes of Part One; it was enough.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-28717320848522121562014-12-19T02:12:29.636-08:002014-12-19T02:12:29.636-08:00I am waiting for Atlas Shrugged 8: Chambers of Dea...I am waiting for Atlas Shrugged 8: Chambers of Death. Where John Galt and Bigfoot team up to fight the mad scientist Dr. Buckley and his atomic powered 50 ft Wittaker Chambers. (Special guest star Richard Nixon as the clumsily waiter. )Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55300267706601674112014-12-10T04:22:05.320-08:002014-12-10T04:22:05.320-08:00It could have been a good series of movies had the...It could have been a good series of movies had they had more resources. I think they would also have had to make more changes than I understand they did. Parially they need to change it to work in a different medium and they needed to update it to allow for technological change. But there would still have been problems with the speeches. They would irritate much more in a movie than in the book. And then of course many of the characters were distant and unsympathetic, especially Galt.Lloyd Flackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00832519369660328832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1380410798261610262014-12-09T23:20:00.178-08:002014-12-09T23:20:00.178-08:00"... all three parts are essentially non-film..."... all three parts are essentially non-films; they aren’t creative or popular objects, but weights meant to hold down a contract." <br /><br />This reminds me of the story behind the low-budget version of The Fantastic Four (1994):<br /><br />"... with the option scheduled to expire on December 31, 1992, Neue Constantin asked Marvel for an extension. With none forthcoming, Eichinger planned to retain his option by producing a low-budget Fantastic Four film, reasoning, 'They didn't say I had to make a big movie.' In September 1992, he teamed with B-movie specialist Roger Corman, who agreed to produce the film on a $1 million budget."<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_%28film%29<br /><br />The bargain basement FF was never released, unlike the three AS films, which were released as widely as possible to theaters and on video. <br /><br />I think the AS producers actually do see their trilogy as finished work and not simply as a placeholder. Just filming Part 1 would have been enough to retain the rights; the choice to do all three indicates that they were serious about getting the whole story on film. <br /><br />"'Atlas Shrugged' is unfilmable."<br /><br />I believe a good version could be made, but it would require more talent and money than were available in this case. Reportedly, Randall Wallace (Braveheart) wrote a respectable feature film script for AS at one point. If the film had been made in the 1970s by Al Ruddy (producer of The Godfather), it might have been good. Ruddy was talking about Fay Dunaway as Dagny, Paul Newman as Rearden, and Robert Redford as Galt - it would be hard to miss with a cast like that. <br /><br />I agree, though, that it's very unlikely there will be a new and better film/TV version now, after the trilogy's box-office belly-flop. Unlike many commenters here, I think that's a shame, because I still like the story.Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35345774721758240362014-12-03T17:40:35.457-08:002014-12-03T17:40:35.457-08:00"Nicely put." - Daniel Barnes
The reaso..."Nicely put." - Daniel Barnes<br /><br />The reason I stuck it in the comments for "A Little Ancient History" and not here was that this comment thread has been dead since October (because the movie was DOA in theaters.)<br /><br />That written, thanks. This blog needs a break from blowhard true-believers in all things Rand....if these movies could not be made well now, after fifty years of the source novel being sold, then "Atlas Shrugged" is unfilmable.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Strelnikovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12660962615198939441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35951401955984874722014-12-02T19:56:41.912-08:002014-12-02T19:56:41.912-08:00Nicely put.Nicely put.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-32073064781124860732014-12-02T09:08:59.392-08:002014-12-02T09:08:59.392-08:00The Onion's "A.V. Club" did an artic...The Onion's "A.V. Club" did an article mentioning the "Atlas Shrugged" movies: http://www.avclub.com/article/our-option-atlas-shrugged-expires-two-days-6-plus--212280<br /><br />To wit:<br /><br />"....Aglialoro’s Atlas Shrugged project is intrinsically fascinating, because all three parts are essentially non-films; they aren’t creative or popular objects, but weights meant to hold down a contract. They are less movies than representations of movies—scale models of the big-budget trilogy Aglialoro was convinced he’d someday make, cast with stand-ins and filled with temp music and rough effects. They belong to a rare category of sub-commercial films: copyright extensions shaped like movies."Strelnikovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12660962615198939441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-79670451817563405612014-10-26T07:55:18.849-07:002014-10-26T07:55:18.849-07:00@Barney
"regarded Galt's speech as the ...@Barney<br /><br /><br />"regarded Galt's speech as the shortest summary of her philosophy"<br /><br /><br />Which supports what I said. If it's just a summary, it's not a rigorous and in-depth philosophical exposition of the issues at hand, so not a good explication of it. Certainly I don't think it wise to come to conclusions about psychology off a speech by a character in a novel.<br /><br /><br /><br />"So yes, you can take its contents as a literal statement of her philosophical doctrine."<br /><br />Of which I then showed how it is not saying free will means we have no innate tendencies.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19260084778540843242014-10-23T22:56:14.607-07:002014-10-23T22:56:14.607-07:00Classiblogi (classiblogi@gmail.com)
is the name of...Classiblogi (classiblogi@gmail.com)<br />is the name of data product which can easily Earn you good income!<br />This product is a combination of 3 different data:<br />1) Free Blogspot.com websites 1st Blogi Data. <br />2) Without Registration Free Classified websites 2nd Classi Data. <br />3) Register Free Classified websites 3rd Classi Data.<br />Why this data is unique from other data offered in net market<br />Because this data is without Repetition, all website are active and consist of authentic domains.<br />Which make you real income in minimum time.<br />1st Blogi Data cost each is 0.060 $ website quantity is 2500 = 150 $ (US)<br />2nd Classi Data cost each is 0.075 $ website quantity is 2000 = 150 $ (US)<br />3rd Classi Data cost each is 0.10 $ website quantity is 1500 = 150 $ (US)<br />The complete Classiblogi product cost is = 450 $ (US)<br />You can purchase Any one of the Data or can purchase complete product.<br />You can Avail Discount (100 $ US) on purchase of complete product called classiblogi in just= 350 $ (US)<br />Contact Email id : classiblogi@gmail.comclassiblogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01437118866276796879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-752500342084995782014-10-18T13:26:29.192-07:002014-10-18T13:26:29.192-07:00@ Daniel & Michael:
Thanks for this exchange...@ Daniel & Michael:<br /><br />Thanks for this exchange. It was heartening to read. And, given the context, also cleansing.<br /><br />So perhaps it's a particularly good time to raise a new and key question:<br /><br />Whither ARCHN?<br /><br />It has been a pleasure to follow this blog. I think of the contributions of Ellen Stuttle, Michael Prescott, Neil Parille. And many others, of course - including Echo Chamber Escapee, who has a moniker which I truly covet.<br /><br />But the reality is that the blog is running down. There were over a hundred posts from 2007 to 2009; since that time, the number has steadily declined. This year there may not even be a dozen.<br /><br />As I see it, you have to either remake yourselves - or sign off, with well-wishing from many and shouts of glee from the usual suspects.<br /><br />But if you opt for remaking, what form would that take? I don't know - but I think it's worth finding out what ideas are out there.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-51157841769550116892014-10-17T00:25:00.538-07:002014-10-17T00:25:00.538-07:00"Fail. Worthless, and childish response that ..."Fail. Worthless, and childish response that is barely even worth me writing this."<br /><br />That's funny, since "childish response" pretty much defines every thing you've posted in comments here. Bickering, angry accusations, rhetorical evasiveness, name-calling, petty challenges - how you can think anything you've done is somehow more "grown up" than anyone else here is more damning than any bit of other people's schadenfreude.<br /><br />You should get that particular obsession of yours checked out, by the way.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-81154209269062144082014-10-16T19:06:38.059-07:002014-10-16T19:06:38.059-07:00Quan:
>The author is writing for a character, s...Quan:<br />>The author is writing for a character, so you cant, as far as I know, say it was the author saying this. It's the character since it's fiction.<br /><br />Well don't just take my word for it:<br />"Ayn Rand regarded Galt's speech as the shortest summary of her philosophy, which she called Objectivism….It was also reproduced in [her first book of essays] For the New Intellectual"<br /><br />http://www.atlassociety.org/outline-john-galts-speech<br /><br />The importance of Galt's speech is unparalleled in Objectivism. As demonstration of this, it is the single most referred-to text in her non-fiction essays.<br /><br />So yes, you can take its contents as a literal statement of her philosophical doctrine.<br />Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8457554913678457312014-10-16T05:30:00.954-07:002014-10-16T05:30:00.954-07:00@Barney
Well my criticism of you so far is that y...@Barney<br /><br />Well my criticism of you so far is that you are a bad person that engages in schadenfreude, you're a childish catty shrew, and that you are dishonest and a liar.<br /><br />So now that it's been established that we don't like each other, never will in a million years, and have no respect for each other, lets move on to the little bit of substance you rendered:<br /><br /><br /><br />"So right away we have Rand claiming man's "free will" means he can have no innate tendencies."<br /><br />This crap above is probably why you clowns and your stupid hate site here are not taken seriously or given the time of day by heavyweight Objectivists like Dr. Tara Smith, Dr. Yaron Brook, Dr. Andrew Bernstein, or Dr. Peikoff, or Dr. Diana Hsieh. Because you guys don't really know what you're talking about.<br /><br />Rand wasn't saying free will means he can have no innate tendencies.<br /><br />She said, or rather the Galt character said if the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth. Emphasis on his choice. This is correct, as a person cannot choose at birth, to have a tendency, since the child was just born.<br /><br />And when the Galt character says if it is not of his choice, his will is not free, that was in the context of talking about a tendency to evil. How can one, at birth, have a tendency to do and be evil, yet be said to have free will?<br /><br />I am also very loathe and uninterested in hearing about what you think of Objectiivsm or what Rand said, from fiction. Fiction is not a good way to distribute or understand a philosophy. You can to a certain extent, but it's a bad way to do so for the most part, since it is embedded in fiction and thus will be skewed with the story telling, and be easily misunderstood and mangled by the narrative.<br /><br />This is one of the reasons why to this day I have never read any of Ayn Rand's fictional novels.<br /><br />My knowledge of the philosophy comes strictly from reading the non-fictional literature. Since that gives a mature, and sober exposition, rather than through story telling fictional novels which don't give an adult-like rigorous philosophical explication.<br /><br /><br />And I could be wrong, but I don't think you can say Rand said this and said that, when it wasn't her that said it directly, but it was one of her bloody characters in her fictional novels.<br /><br />I could be wrong, but I don't think fiction works that way.<br /><br />I've never heard anyone, at least with me, say Stephen King said this and that, when it was actually his character Jack Torrance that said it.<br /><br />The author is writing for a character, so you cant, as far as I know, say it was the author saying this. It's the character since it's fiction.<br /><br />For example, say Stephen King writes for one of his characters to say homosexuality is evil.<br /><br />You cant necessarily say that is what Stephen King is saying or rather believes since it's bloody fiction. Stephen King the person could actually think homosexuality is fine and moral.<br /><br />That's why it's best to refer to the nonfictional statements of the person to make sure there is no misunderstanding about their position or beliefs.<br /><br />This might be why you clowns have such a problem with Objectivism. You are going off of fictional novels. Not sure.<br /><br />But this is a place where I learned a great deal about Objectivism:<br /><br />http://importanceofphilosophy.com/<br /><br />And my understanding and conception of Objectivism is basically what's on that site since that is one of the main resources I learned Objectivism from.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-13528599904455972122014-10-16T04:13:59.993-07:002014-10-16T04:13:59.993-07:00@Jzero
"Thank you for proving my point perfe...@Jzero<br /><br />"Thank you for proving my point perfectly"<br /><br />Fail. Worthless, and childish response that is barely even worth me writing this.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25444004942564819692014-10-15T17:22:51.580-07:002014-10-15T17:22:51.580-07:00Quan:
>Based on that blog post and its comments...Quan:<br />>Based on that blog post and its comments, as far as I can tell, no quote has yet been rendered that shows Rand claimed that humans have no innate tendencies or predispositions….What was given is that she said man doesn't have any instincts.<br /><br />Well, my criticism of you so far is that you simply seem too ignorant to be regarded as any kind of authority on Rand. You are not familiar enough with her writing, nor her philosophy, to be a worthwhile interlocutor. You simply seem to be relying on others such as myself who are familiar with her thinking to clue you in. For example, here is a well known quote of Rand's on original sin, from Galt's Speech:<br /><br />"A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free."<br /><br />So right away we have Rand claiming man's "free will" means he can have no innate tendencies. So, no, it's not just playing games with the word "instinct".<br /><br />So I can see what's in it for you for me to respond to this or that "challenge" - you'll improve your knowledge of Objectivism. <br /><br />But I can't see what's in it for me?<br /><br />(Incidentally I also showed on the same thread that the Randian definition "instinct" makes no sense and it seems even Peikoff was unable to clearly explain what she meant by the term. So in short, what Rand meant by "instinct" is bogus - she is referring to something that *no* living creature has ever possessed).Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72986758469086991582014-10-15T01:58:10.514-07:002014-10-15T01:58:10.514-07:00"(Laughing) What "semantics" is bei..."(Laughing) What "semantics" is being used you fool? You are making accusations that you are guilty of yourself, since this claim of "semantics" is itself obscured by you giving no specificity."<br /><br />Thank you for proving my point perfectly.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-40650982534817705832014-10-14T19:12:22.838-07:002014-10-14T19:12:22.838-07:00"Unfortunately the quality of his engagement ..."Unfortunately the quality of his engagement in "intellectual issues" was weak at best."<br /><br />No, I engaged the intellectual issues, but once I realized this was a hate site, I switched to simply pointing out the bad behavior of the regular drones on here. Also, it was kind of pointless to deal with intellectual issues when Nyquist said some pretty stupid stuff on logic and reason from what I remember.<br /><br />Also, Nyquist is just trying to smear Objectivism with a bunch of words that don't really say anything like Nyquist's penchant for ascribing certain claims or things to unnamed Objectivists.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Which we then did. In fact Rand made many well-known statements on this important issue. Not very "expert" so far."<br /><br />Looking back at the blog post you cited it's evident you are not giving an honest representation of the situation . Which is now the third example of you being a dishonest person.<br /><br />Based on that blog post and its comments, as far as I can tell, no quote has yet been rendered that shows Rand claimed that humans have no innate tendencies or predispositions.<br /><br />What was given is that she said man doesn't have any instincts.<br /><br />Upon which I dropped the knowledge that Rand was not referring to instinct as in behavior, but epistemology. This is confirmed in the Lexicon when they define instinct as an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. <br /><br />So your dishonest attempt to smear me as not being an expert on Objectivism fails since what I said is accurate and correct and as far as I can tell, no one on here has shown otherwise on that situation.<br /><br /><br />"But here's how he answered it."<br /><br />That wasn't my answer you clown. I just made an off the cuff remark that it's probably a bunch of junk, like 99% of the attacks on Objectivism.<br /><br />Which is what I've seen from several attacks against Objectivism. And it wasnt simply stated as the Is-Ought problem, but Tremblay arrogantly claimed it was a complete demolition of Objectivist morality.<br /><br /><br />Tremblay wasn't clearly talking to me and didn't ask me to refute it so I don't and didn't have an onus to do anymore than I did.<br /><br />The fact that you would present that as that was my answer, again shows you are a dishonest person.<br /><br /><br />"He also tried to refer questioners back to other people at the Objectivist Answers site, rather than answer himself"<br /><br />The above is also dishonest. For example, when I referred people to Andrew Dalton's answer on ObjectivistAnswers, in that very post I had fully answered the situation at hand, and simply gave an extra resource.<br /><br /><br />"we here at the ARCHNblog actually know a damn sight more about Rand's philosophy than he does"<br /><br />Not really. As shown by your misunderstanding of what Rand meant when she said instincts. <br /><br />If you knew Objectivism well, you would know she meant epistemology, not psychology or behavior.<br /><br /><br />So I challenged you to go to Objectivist Answers and give them what you think is a knock down argument that shows Objectivism is wrong, or to give them questions that you think are the strongest refutations of Objectivism, and you have thus far, cowardly ran from this challegne.<br /><br />So given more of you talking crap here, I challenge you again.<br /><br />In your own words, sum up the fatal problems with Objectivism in its metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and political philosophy so we can see who is an expert and if a person does or does not have the "nous" or knowledge to deal with it and answer it.<br /><br /><br />That shouldnt be too hard for you since I'm simply asking for a summary and your cowardly butt can stay on friendly territory with the other sycophantic like drones on here who can support you and give you pats on the back and other worthless biased support and chime in with more insults if you get smacked around like you have been getting.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-68993373466264122972014-10-14T14:53:41.672-07:002014-10-14T14:53:41.672-07:00@Jzero
"Looks like nobody took QH up on his ...@Jzero<br /><br />"Looks like nobody took QH up on his challenge bait and so heeeeee's back!"<br /><br />Of course they wouldnt since the site is made up of a bunch of cowards like yourself, proving my point.<br /><br /><br />"You use semantics"<br /><br /><br /><br />(Laughing) What "semantics" is being used you fool? You are making accusations that you are guilty of yourself, since this claim of "semantics" is itself obscured by you giving no specificity.<br /><br /><br />"The rest is just name-calling, and grow the fuck up, QH."<br /><br />No, the rest is you getting tore up and having your bigotry and stupidity exposed.<br /><br />And you're low class enough to curse too? What a surprise.<br />QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-74683125407921836982014-10-14T09:46:27.026-07:002014-10-14T09:46:27.026-07:00Looks like nobody took QH up on his challenge bait...Looks like nobody took QH up on his challenge bait and so heeeeee's back!<br /><br />"Use what to obscure? What is specifically being used, and what is it obscuring? You're just making crap up like you did earlier."<br /><br />Semantics. You use semantics to dance around an issue instead of directly answering a question. Which I thought was perfectly obvious from the context of my earlier post, and the quote of yours I was replying to, but apparently you can't even follow that series of points, so whatever.<br /><br />The rest is just name-calling, and grow the fuck up, QH.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47614247726113332082014-10-14T05:29:39.768-07:002014-10-14T05:29:39.768-07:00@Jzero
"so why bother posting, if you know t...@Jzero<br /><br />"so why bother posting, if you know this already?"<br /><br />Uh, because I want to. What a stupid question.<br /><br /><br />"It seems pretty obvious nobody here is much disturbed or troubled by your accusations"<br /><br />You and Barnes and the anonymous guy were disturbed or troubled enough to bother to comment on it. And Burkowski.<br /><br />You could actually have shut the hell up and it would have worked out better that way. It's not like I care too much about your self righteous whining.<br /><br /><br />"As if your own bias isn't obvious"<br /><br />I haven't displayed any bias sparky. You're just repeating back what I say to you in the manner of an elementary child saying I know you are but what am I.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Yeah, go visit a place surrounded by people who think the same as Rand and hate the same things as Rand"<br /><br />They don't hate the same things as Rand you fool. A perfect example of that is Eric Maughan, who is apparently an Objectivist, but does not hate Native Americans or agree with Rand's stance on them.<br /><br /><br />The fact that you would even say that about a place and people you apparently have never directly interacted with shows how narrow-minded and bigoted you are. Which explains why you're on this hate site in the first place.<br /><br /><br />"on some school playground stomping around trying to prove how tough I am"<br /><br />In other words, you're a weak ass coward. And as such, you'll continue to stay on friendly territory, where you are in the majority and are surrounded by those that think the same as you do. Shove it son.<br /><br /><br /><br />"especially since you don't bother to explain what, then, you actually are"<br /><br />That is irrelevant, as I already explained to Barnes. Have you explained what you actually are, you clown?<br /><br /><br /><br />"Except you use it to obscure, not enlighten."<br /><br />Use what to obscure? What is specifically being used, and what is it obscuring? You're just making crap up like you did earlier.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-15101734811471947562014-10-05T10:04:10.643-07:002014-10-05T10:04:10.643-07:00The "Atlas Shrugged" franchise reaches n...The "Atlas Shrugged" franchise reaches new heights of intellectual and artistic achievement in "Atlas Shrugged Part 7: Galt vs Bigfoot". Certain criticisms of earlier installments in the series reflected a dissatisfaction with the CGI effects, particularly the daytime scenes. Therefore, the makers of "Atlas Shrugged Part 7: Galt vs Bigfoot" have placed emphasis on practical effects in the movie, particularly in regards to the realization of Bigfoot. Never before in the history of cinema has Bigfoot looked so real, so lifelike and so lovable! <br /><br />The film begins after Galt blows up the moon-base from "Atlas Shrugged Part 6". Using his engineering skills, he repairs his rocket ship for a solo return to Earth. Unknown to him, the Malevolent Entity has concealed herself as a stowaway. Galt was indifferent. Perhaps he could amuse himself on the long voyage home by watching some video. Luckily, the ship's library was filled with entertainment films. But curiously, every time he starts a program the video screen image is replaced by archival footage of Marilyn Monroe. Is it a malfunction of the entertainment system, or something more pernicious? Galt was pleased. After all, Marilyn was talented, beautiful and charming. Why not watch "Niagara"? But suddenly, as Galt gazes, the screen bursts into static and something hideous appears: the Malevolent Entity! Her sagging skin quivers as she screams, <b>"The evil of a cultural atmosphere killed Marilyn!"</b><br /><br />A wretched howl fills the ship.<br /><br />What follows is a tour de force of movie making artistry. The ship explodes, but in doing so, it opens up a time portal to another dimension! Galt survives and awakens in a wooded area. Is it Earth? Distantly, an enormous shaggy figure appears. Galt was indifferent. But as the misshapen creature lurks closer, Galt recognizes the monster. It's Bigfoot! What happens next? Find out (or just be indifferent to) the thrilling climax in "Atlas Shrugged Part 7: Galt vs Bigfoot"!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37530624551534040932014-10-01T15:48:13.504-07:002014-10-01T15:48:13.504-07:00Quan claimed:
>"Nah. I come on here for va...Quan claimed:<br />>"Nah. I come on here for various reasons. Earlier it was to engage in the intellectual issues, which I did."<br /><br />Once again this seems to be a case of Quan over promising and under delivering.<br /><br />In fact we dedicated an <a href="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/an-objectivist-answers.html" rel="nofollow">entire post</a> to this self-described "expert" in Objectivism. Unfortunately the quality of his engagement in "intellectual issues" was weak at best. <br /><br />For example, when faced with the question of Rand's denial of man's innate instincts, and even talents, Quan wrote:<br />"I've never heard of Rosenbaum claiming that humans have no innate tendencies or predispositions. If you can provide a direct quote, do so."<br /><br />Which we then did. In fact Rand made many well-known statements on this important issue. Not very "expert" so far.<br /><br />He fares no better when faced with logical criticisms; for example Michael Huemer's premise-by-premise takedown of Rand's claim to have solved the "is-ought" problem:<br /><br />Well, Quan had never heard of this either. But here's how he answered it.<br />"It's probably a bunch of junk, like 99% of the attacks on Objectivism...It would be nice if some similar clown would giddily volunteer to point out a so called COMPLETE demolition of Islamic morality….Rather curious that Mr. Michael Huemer chooses to attack tiny Objectivism, rather than a religious cult believed in by over a billion people. Curious that."<br /><br />So his only reply to a thorough logical criticism of Objectivism is to…say the critic should attack Islam instead??? Really?<br /><br />He also tried to refer questioners back to other people at the Objectivist Answers site, rather than answer himself. Beyond that.. not much, certainly nothing like a sustained intellectual engagement one would expect of an "expert". It seems quite obvious that we here at the ARCHNblog actually know a damn sight more about Rand's philosophy than he does. So his performance as it stands suggests that, despite us offering a platform for engaging on "intellectual issues" around Objectivism Quan is all hat, and no cattle. He has simply neither the knowledge or the nous required. Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72514823509932773872014-10-01T11:24:07.224-07:002014-10-01T11:24:07.224-07:00And by the way:
"Semantics is very important...And by the way:<br /><br />"Semantics is very important to any discussion because one must know exactly what a person means by salient words."<br /><br />Except you use it to obscure, not enlighten. When we call you an Objectivist, and you deny it, that does not clarify the matter - especially since you don't bother to explain what, then, you actually are. But it's obvious to everyone involved that you're here to defend Objectivism from criticism, that you side with Objectivists, that you are, for all reasonable intents and purposes, acting as if you are an offended Objectivist. (If you act like an offended Objectivist, does it matter if you don't call yourself an offended Objectivist? A rose by any other name...) Everyone here knows what they mean when they're calling you an Objectivist, so your protests do nothing to change that, your dickering over what label to (not) call you serves nothing but to distract from more substantive matters, if any could be found in your posts.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64316375091456883982014-10-01T02:38:41.413-07:002014-10-01T02:38:41.413-07:00"You don't have to take me seriously bro&...<br />"You don't have to take me seriously bro"<br /><br />Well, no problem there. Should ANYBODY take you seriously, then? After all, you yourself don't "pay the bills" of myself, Nyquist, Barnes, or anyone else found here, so why bother posting, if you know this already?<br /><br />"Nah. I come on here for various reasons. Earlier it was to engage in the intellectual issues, which I did."<br /><br />That's debatable.<br /><br />"Now, since people like Barnes and Nyquist are acting like such catty little shrews and engaging in so much childish behavior(like teenage gossip), I am pointing out their bad behavior, and taking them to task for it."<br /><br />Well, you're *alleging* the former, but not really connecting with the latter. Just standing up and bleating "schadenfreude!" doesn't establish that as what's actually going on, and even if it did, there's the whole pot/kettle thing going on - what makes you any better suited to "take someone to task" when there's plenty of fault to be seen in your own personality?<br /><br />"Someone should do it."<br /><br />Says you.<br /><br />But to what end? It seems pretty obvious nobody here is much disturbed or troubled by your accusations, so what's gained? Are you just charging up your smugness for a while?<br /><br />"Silly little sycophants like you or Burkowski would never dare say anything negative about Barnes or Parille or Nyquist. At least I've never seen it and likely never will. You are too biased for that."<br /><br />As if your own bias isn't obvious.<br /><br />"Also let me point out the reason why none of your snobby, self-righteous blather phases me in the slightest. It's because, like Burkowski and Barnes and Nyquist, you are a coward."<br /><br />Oh nooo! Sick burn, bro, I may not recover from the shame.<br /><br />"You talk all this crap and get all froggy on friendly territory.<br /><br />Get all big and bold on Objectivist Answers Jzero, when your whiny, self righteous butt isnt surrounded by people who think the same as you and hate the same things as you."<br /><br />Pfff. Yeah, go visit a place surrounded by people who think the same as Rand and hate the same things as Rand. That would be COMPLETELY different and not in ANY way a den of sycophants.<br /><br />"It's easy to get all fresh and froggy when you are in the majority. Until I see you get some bails and go on enemy territory and be strong in adverse conditions like I do, you're just another coward to me. And to be disregarded thus."<br /><br />How is what you're doing "strong"? You're not doing any reasoning, not presenting much in the way of logic, you're just slinging insults and double-dog-dares. It doesn't take a lot of courage or strength to pop into a forum and yell "losers!" repeatedly. I'm not about to go to this other forum to be abused, because 1) if you're an indicator of the level of discourse I can expect, I'll pass; and 2) I'm not twelve, on some school playground stomping around trying to prove how tough I am.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72830947884412433272014-09-30T01:48:43.189-07:002014-09-30T01:48:43.189-07:00"what would be the point"
I have a lot ..."what would be the point"<br /><br />I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the philosophy of Objectivism.<br /><br />The book called evidence of the senses and Objectivism's explication of rights is fantastic in explaining those profound issues in naturalistic/Atheistic terms.<br /><br /><br />"which is a common Objectivist tactic, to focus on semantics and thereby deflect"<br /><br />Semantics is very important to any discussion because one must know exactly what a person means by salient words. Otherwise you could talk past each other or quickly become guilty of strawmanning your opponent.<br /><br />I also notice that is a common tactic among the hater-drones on here like yourself. To attribute negative behaviors or things to unnamed Objectivists. This appears to be a common tactic of Greg Nyquist.<br /><br />Can you name some specific Objectivists that split semantic hairs and thereby deflect attention away from the relevant points of a discussion?<br /><br /><br /><br />"so what reason is there to take him seriously? But somehow he can't (or won't) see how that works."<br /><br />You don't have to take me seriously bro since you don't really mean anything to me. In a succinct punch, you don't pay my bills. So why then should I give a flying crap what or who, you take seriously? I don't. You can frankly kiss off.<br /><br /><br />"for the express purpose of being an antagonistic jerk"<br /><br />Nah. I come on here for various reasons. Earlier it was to engage in the intellectual issues, which I did. Now, since people like Barnes and Nyquist are acting like such catty little shrews and engaging in so much childish behavior(like teenage gossip), I am pointing out their bad behavior, and taking them to task for it.<br /><br />Someone should do it. Silly little sycophants like you or Burkowski would never dare say anything negative about Barnes or Parille or Nyquist. At least I've never seen it and likely never will. You are too biased for that.<br /><br />Also let me point out the reason why none of your snobby, self-righteous blather phases me in the slightest. It's because, like Burkowski and Barnes and Nyquist, you are a coward.<br /><br />You talk all this crap and get all froggy on friendly territory.<br /><br />Get all big and bold on Objectivist Answers Jzero, when your whiny, self righteous butt isnt surrounded by people who think the same as you and hate the same things as you.<br /><br />It's easy to get all fresh and froggy when you are in the majority. Until I see you get some bails and go on enemy territory and be strong in adverse conditions like I do, you're just another coward to me. And to be disregarded thus.QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.com