Atlas Shrugged Part II set to open in October

worse, he mischaracterized capitalism as "make the biggest paycheck you can get right-the-fuck-now"

no

worse, he mischaracterized capitalism as "make the biggest paycheck you can get right-the-fuck-now"

no

by inference, you sure as fuck did.
don't puss out on your "see the irony" comment.

worse, he mischaracterized capitalism as "make the biggest paycheck you can get right-the-fuck-now"

no

by inference, you sure as fuck did.
don't puss out on your "see the irony" comment.

mmmm, still no.

I'm enjoying the fantastical extrapolation of a fairly innocuous comment I made. Please, carry on. Folks do sure get butthurt when you slight the Prophet.

worse, he mischaracterized capitalism as "make the biggest paycheck you can get right-the-fuck-now"

no

by inference, you sure as fuck did.
don't puss out on your "see the irony" comment.

mmmm, still no.

I'm enjoying the fantastical extrapolation of a fairly innocuous comment I made. Please, carry on. Folks do sure get butthurt when you slight the Prophet.

My comments, listed exhaustively, included "misunderstood" and "mischaracterized."

You may actually have read Atlas Shrugged, but you didn't understand it.

Right, because Objectivism is so hard to grasp.

Difficulty is not the issue. You mischaracterized it out of the gate as "promoting capitalism above all things." It was then pointed out to you that if financial success was the ultimate Randian virtue none of the protagonists would have behaved the way they did in Atlas Shrugged.

You and Ichy raised some excellent points that were completely ignored by Quark.

Troll anyone?

worse, he mischaracterized capitalism as "make the biggest paycheck you can get right-the-fuck-now"

no

by inference, you sure as fuck did.
don't puss out on your "see the irony" comment.

mmmm, still no.

I'm enjoying the fantastical extrapolation of a fairly innocuous comment I made. Please, carry on. Folks do sure get butthurt when you slight the Prophet.

you are being disingenuous, irrespective of whether or not you are enjoying the activity.
you snarked:

:-k Am I the only one who sees the irony in a movie franchise that promotes capitalism above all things investing in a sequel to a movie that was a total financial failure?

three clauses
1. I see irony in the following comparison
2. a movie franchise that promotes capitalism above all things
3. investing in a sequel to a movie that was a total financial failure

you contrast "capitalism above all things" with "a total financial failure"
either this was deliberate, or you are simply throwing words on the screen without thought.
assuming deliberation, and given the way you cherry-pick your definition of failure, the clear inference is the equation of capitalism with immediate financial success, aka: "get the biggest paycheck right-the-fuck-now"

If your words have meaning, this is that meaning.
If your words have not this meaning, your words mean nothing.

You and Ichy raised some excellent points that were completely ignored by Quark.

Troll anyone?

Note that Quark2005 has adopted the "Rage Comic Troll Face" as his avatar and draw your own conclusions.

You and Ichy raised some excellent points that were completely ignored by Quark.

Troll anyone?

Note that Quark2005 has adopted the "Rage Comic Troll Face" as his avatar and draw your own conclusions.

I don't see it since I put him on ignore a while ago. Unfortunately I can still see his inane comments when others respond to him.

I'm enjoying the fantastical extrapolation of a fairly innocuous comment I made. Please, carry on. Folks do sure get butthurt when you slight the Prophet.

Note that Quark2005 is so lazy and sloppy in his trolling that he's not even bothering to make sense when he wants to be a dick.

Nowhere in this thread did he "slight the Prophet" , he didn't even make any comment about Rand nor her own works, but now he' pretending that some unnamed persons on the thread are "butthurt" because he did, not that they're irritated because he's being supercilious and going out of his way to post major mischaracterizations that he knows people will go "WTF?" about and jump to rebut, and then he fans the flames with condescending remarks like "slight the Prophet" and so on.

I'm enjoying the fantastical extrapolation of a fairly innocuous comment I made. Please, carry on. Folks do sure get butthurt when you slight the Prophet.

Note that Quark2005 is so lazy and sloppy in his trolling that he's not even bothering to make sense when he wants to be a dick.

Nowhere in this thread did he "slight the Prophet" , he didn't even make any comment about Rand nor her own works, but now he' pretending that some unnamed persons on the thread are "butthurt" because he did, not that they're irritated because he's being supercilious and going out of his way to post major mischaracterizations that he knows people will go "WTF?" about and jump to rebut, and then he fans the flames with condescending remarks like "slight the Prophet" and so on.

I have seen it all too often before which is why I put him on ignore (which he takes as some kind "victory").

Not being a big fan of dogpiles, I'd like to reiterate that my comments were restricted to the terms of "misunderstood" and "mischaracterized" which in turn were descriptive summaries rather than prescriptive testimony. The meat of my argument was contrasting of the virtue motivated behavior of the protagonists in the novel against the alleged "capitalism above all" motivation.

Not being a big fan of dogpiles, I'd like to reiterate that my comments were restricted to the terms of "misunderstood" and "mischaracterized" which in turn were descriptive summaries rather than prescriptive testimony. The meat of my argument was contrasting of the virtue motivated behavior of the protagonists in the novel against the alleged "capitalism above all" motivation.

I agree with your interpretation. "Capitalism" is a byproduct of individual freedom.

I agree with your interpretation. "Capitalism" is a byproduct of individual freedom.

Slightly mote complex than that. Individual freedom - free Greeks of Socrates' times did have individual freedom, but they did not have capitalism. The Chinese of 1000 yrs ago did not have individual freedom, but had a lot of capitalism, they even invented and were trading the commodity futures. Hence, one needs to tighten the definitions.

You and Ichy raised some excellent points that were completely ignored by Quark.

Troll anyone?

Yes I agree. Nilla is a troll.

I'm enjoying the fantastical extrapolation of a fairly innocuous comment I made. Please, carry on. Folks do sure get butthurt when you slight the Prophet.

Note that Quark2005 is so lazy and sloppy in his trolling that he's not even bothering to make sense when he wants to be a dick.

Nowhere in this thread did he "slight the Prophet" , he didn't even make any comment about Rand nor her own works, but now he' pretending that some unnamed persons on the thread are "butthurt" because he did, not that they're irritated because he's being supercilious and going out of his way to post major mischaracterizations that he knows people will go "WTF?" about and jump to rebut, and then he fans the flames with condescending remarks like "slight the Prophet" and so on.

Don't wear the shoe if it doesn't fit.

Don't wear the shoe if it doesn't fit.

And which shoe would that be?

You made mischaracterizations and jlogajan and I both politely pointed out their inaccuracy.

You then started casting aspersions and jabs for no good reason other than to inflame and I called you on it.

Now you're trying to stir shit up by implying that the only reason I could possibly find your antics distasteful is if I'm actually guilty of the scattershot pejoratives you've flung as poo into the thread.

I don't know what's happened to you lately, but you've turned both puerile and obnoxious. Whatever your personal issues are, be an adult and stop inflicting them on us.

ok, sounds good.

I agree with your interpretation. "Capitalism" is a byproduct of individual freedom.

Slightly mote complex than that. Individual freedom - free Greeks of Socrates' times did have individual freedom, but they did not have capitalism. The Chinese of 1000 yrs ago did not have individual freedom, but had a lot of capitalism, they even invented and were trading the commodity futures. Hence, one needs to tighten the definitions.

I maintain that if one does not have property rights (which includes the right to buy and sell one's property) than such a condition is not freedom as I understand it. When I say 'capitalism', I am talking about free trade, not necessarily some type of stock market.

I agree with your interpretation. "Capitalism" is a byproduct of individual freedom.

Slightly mote complex than that. Individual freedom - free Greeks of Socrates' times did have individual freedom, but they did not have capitalism.

I'm not up to speed on ancient Greek economic systems. What *did* they have?

I'm not up to speed on ancient Greek economic systems. What *did* they have?

Sheesh, Ich, you're such a dummy...





(smiley omitted for maximum comedic effect)

I'm not up to speed on ancient Greek economic systems. What *did* they have?

Sheesh, Ich, you're such a dummy...
(smiley omitted for maximum comedic effect)

129040939409476173.jpg

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I agree with your interpretation. "Capitalism" is a byproduct of individual freedom.

Slightly mote complex than that. Individual freedom - free Greeks of Socrates' times did have individual freedom, but they did not have capitalism. The Chinese of 1000 yrs ago did not have individual freedom, but had a lot of capitalism, they even invented and were trading the commodity futures. Hence, one needs to tighten the definitions.

I maintain that if one does not have property rights (which includes the right to buy and sell one's property) than such a condition is not freedom as I understand it. When I say 'capitalism', I am talking about free trade, not necessarily some type of stock market.

Well, and following my teacher, I use "capitalism" as a designation for a way of life under which the monetary/property relationships become predominant and defining. These relationships in some form or another have been existing since pre-historic times. Their presence as such is not a sociological indicator, but their role in defining that society "physiognomy" is. The Chinese were monetarized to a great extent, they were even purchasing social rank as far back as 1 century BC.

I agree with your interpretation. "Capitalism" is a byproduct of individual freedom.

Slightly mote complex than that. Individual freedom - free Greeks of Socrates' times did have individual freedom, but they did not have capitalism.

I'm not up to speed on ancient Greek economic systems. What *did* they have?

Wait, now.

Ichey, you're asking, "What's a Greek earn?"

I'm not up to speed on ancient Greek economic systems. What *did* they have?

Slaves - which is not quite a capitalistic arrangement [capitalism knows of wage slavery, though]. Athens was a slaveholding democracy, Sparta was a slaveholding "constitutional statist monarchy". And here I would like to correct my typo [before it comes to the eyes of emperor]: not "mote complex than that" but "more complex than that". The keys for "r" and "t" are adjacent.

I'm not up to speed on ancient Greek economic systems. What *did* they have?

Slaves - which is not quite a capitalistic arrangement [capitalism knows of wage slavery, though]. Athens was a slaveholding democracy, Sparta was a slaveholding "constitutional statist monarchy". And here I would like to correct my typo [before it comes to the eyes of emperor]: not "mote complex than that" but "more complex than that". The keys for "r" and "t" are adjacent.

A mote, in God's eye, is acceptable.