After an interminable, seemingly random series of invasive questions about my personal proclivities, I finished my profile. I almost quit when it asked me if I was interested in the "cashflow game," which I thought was some kind of hip-hop reference, but I persevered like John Galt would have.
१७ ऑक्टोबर, २०१३
"One of the first questions they ask you [at the Ayn-Rand-fan dating website] is about your appearance."
"I'm not sure what the difference is between 'cuddly' and 'very cuddly.' Seems like some kind of code word for fat. I picked 'very cuddly,' as I figured Objectivists are looking for a man who likes to cuddle after they get home from a long day managing a train factory or whatever."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
Yup, "cuddly" = "fat." "Very cuddly" = "morbidly obese."
Not sure what body type an Objectivist would be expected to prefer. Fatter the better, since he or she would be presumed to be more selfish? Or thinner, since he or she would presumably consume fewer calories and thus be less of a burden?
Choices.
This body type.
We're supposed to be surprised that a web site dedicated to a "marginal" philosophy is peopled by weirdoes? What does the author think she would find if she tried the Spartacist League web site? Probably people who are just as dicky, but wanting to take other people's money rather than make their own.
You think I'd ever get a mate off an Hegelian dating site? Nuuu-Uhhh! I went safe and got my squeezums off a Neo-Platonic site!
I want an Ayn Rand Valentine that reads: "You're the OBJECT of my desire."
Hey! I like "The Shawshank Redemption". I have to do some self reflection, perhaps I'm an objectivist deep down, oy.
Oh that body type would require too much time at the gym to sculpt. Shocking misuse of priorities.
LOL. I actually assume that the Cash Flow game is the game from Robert Kiyosaki. It's priced very high so that it is purchased by clubs and groups, and has a large national following as a networking event. I would consider meeting a girl at a Cash Flow event; that might be a cool date.
The mouse on the Cash Flow game has a body that is too human. Instead of being an anthropomorphized mouse, he's more half mouse, half man. Is there a centaur in this game? Minotaur? Sphinx? Obviously, the game is too strange with all of these things in it running businesses or whatever they do. What sort of businesses do you suppose mixed animals run? That's right, freak shows. What sort of business is that to encourage children to get into? It's not, that's what.
The mouseman game is for adults?
I met my Indian/UK hubby from Christian Mingle under the "sodomists" subgroup.
Neither of us our cuddly though....but thats because we are part of the homosexual agenda.
If you don't mind me asking Young Hegelian, do you have children? Just wondering how that would work in a Platonic relationship.
The linked article is devoted mostly to mocking specific, identifiable people because they are different from the author. Whether that is cleverly accomplished or not, is it something a mature, civil human should be encouraging?
And, no, I am not one of the people mocked in the article.
@Bob,
Link please.
I was, of course, BSing, more or less. More, because there is no such site, but less, because when I met my wife to be, she was writing her thesis on this guy.
@Rocketeer,
C'mon, you don't think Socrates & Diotima always kept their hands on the table, do ya?
I went to the Neo-Photonic site, but it was all false colors instead of fifty shades of grey.
invasive questions about my personal proclivities
What in God's name did he expect from a dating site?
For one to have any attempt to match-make at all, those are absolutely unavoidable.
The worst thing about trying to read through that -- I only made it about 3/4 of the way -- was the way every joke the author tried to crack was totally undermined by his own lack of understanding of what he was mocking.
Example: "all Rand's heroes are rich and vice versa"
Anyone who has ever read anything by Ayn Rand -- or even skimmed passages from a single work -- knows this is false. The worst villains in an Ayn Rand novel are rich people. Wesley Mouch, James Taggert, Lillian Rearden, Dr. Robert Stadler -- the main antagonists of Atlas Shrugged. Every single one of them is rich.
The author has completely reversed the meaning of objectivism, thinking that objectivism entails "rich means you are good" when really it's the opposite: "being good will make you rich."
I make decisions specifically to increase happiness at the expense of wealth I've chosen a low stress job that gives me the freedom to read Althouse at work for example.
This article linked was interesting to read but in an "accidentally something from the Onion" sense.
I've not read much Rand but what little I know I'm fine with, but anyone who defines themselves around a mere book seems remarkably uninteresting as a person.
But the heroes and heroines are also quite wealthy; Dagney, Francisco, Hank, and the entire population of Galt's Gulch. And of course, the money speech by Francisco leaves no doubt that Rand regards wealth is the source of her unique definition of goodness. Provided, of course, that the wealth is the result of productive power.
When I hung around in Randroid circles (a while ago), there were almost no really fat people there. I've seen fat Christians (both right and left sort), fat socialists, fat libertarians, fat communists, fat crypto-freaks, etc. But the Randroids, while not necessarily athletic, were chubby at most.
Wow, what a complete asshole. He goes to a dating site and writes a bunch of mocking commentary about people using it and posts their pictures online. Just to get a column.
What he needs is not a date, what he needs is to have the shit kicked out of him one dark night by some ordinary folks furious about his complete narcissistic lack of consideration for others who haven't done him the slightest harm.
"But the heroes and heroines are also quite wealthy; Dagney, Francisco, Hank, and the entire population of Galt's Gulch."
Yes. They are virtuous, therefore they got rich.
"And of course, the money speech by Francisco leaves no doubt that Rand regards wealth is the source of her unique definition of goodness. Provided, of course, that the wealth is the result of productive power."
You got it right on the last sentence of that paragraph, but not the start. And that last sentence is the key part of Rand's philosophy that I was harping on.
Francisco's money speech can be summed up as: productive power (virtue) results in the acquisition of money. Therefore possession of earned money is the embodiment of virtue. So it's (usually) wrong to scoff at the rich. But it's productive power is the good -- scoff away if the person is rich by marriage (Lillian Rearden) or graft (Wesley Mouch).
Sayyid said...@4:09
Most liberals get her wrong. They seem to think she was some sort of economist, rather than a moral philosopher.
You try and point that out and they get pretty agitated. But then again they ,for the most part, never heard of Hayek and Mises.
Except your original argument was simply that the rich are the villains in Atlas. This is not true, as I properly observed. The more complete and nuanced analysis you offered, describing the metaphysical relationship between virtue and wealth, was mostly correct.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा