Ayn Rand's Objectivism

The_Fragile
The_Fragile's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2006-07-16
User is offlineOffline
Ayn Rand's Objectivism

I've been reading some on Ayn Rand's Objectivism. I'm finding it interesting for the most part if not a little misguided, at least in my opinion. Her total rejection of altruism for instance bothers me. I think altrusim has its place in society, but find the importance of self-interest. I think the two can be balanced quite easily. Plus, her assertion that one needs a moral code to know good from evil. I think this little better than theists asserting thesim for the same reason. Simply following the Golden Rule and realizing if one's actions or choices cause mental or physical suffering, then refraining from doing those actions and making those choices. Anyway, I'm curious about everyone's opinion on Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Perhaps some links to good critizisms of her work would also be helpful. Basically I'm looking for a "other-side of the story" perspective, if you will. Thanks.

In reason,

The_Fragile 

 

I hope they cannot see
the limitless potential
living inside of me
to murder everything.
I hope they cannot see
I am the great destroyer.


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: You've not

todangst wrote:
You've not cited anything that demonstrates that a majority of scientists reject the hypothesis that humans are a key cause of global warming.

The documentary he posted...

 

todangst wrote:
What does it matter if the fellow offering to help you also has ulterior motives? Some political purposes, whatever their motives, lead to actions with beneficial outcomes.  If what you imply is true: that all politicians have ulterior motives, then a concern about ulterior motives appears moot. One should ignore them and simply focus on which political purposes potentially serve the greatest common good.

good point.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chaoslord2004

Chaoslord2004 wrote:

todangst wrote:
You've not cited anything that demonstrates that a majority of scientists reject the hypothesis that humans are a key cause of global warming.

The documentary he posted...

I'm refering to his wiki reference.

As for the documentary, does it contradict Naomi Oreskes' research? (Cited above)

todangst wrote:
What does it matter if the fellow offering to help you also has ulterior motives? Some political purposes, whatever their motives, lead to actions with beneficial outcomes. If what you imply is true: that all politicians have ulterior motives, then a concern about ulterior motives appears moot. One should ignore them and simply focus on which political purposes potentially serve the greatest common good.

Quote:

good point.

Thanks.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: I'm

todangst wrote:

I'm refering to his wiki reference.

As for the documentary, does it contradict Naomi Oreskes' research? (Cited above

It cited a list.  I do not know if it was Naomi's list.  I would have to watch it again. 

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
I'm re-watching it now. 

I'm re-watching it now.  When the list comes up, I will tell you.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Chaoslord2004 wrote: I'm

Chaoslord2004 wrote:
I'm re-watching it now. When the list comes up, I will tell you.

Ok, cool.

 

You should try the stickam room some night,  i haven't been in there in a while, but mostly because the topics of conversation do not interest me....not much philosophy except for doctor O, who's always good for such discussions.... 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
alright, they refuted a

alright, they refuted a concensus from the ICCP. Is Naomi speaking on behalf of the ICCP? If so, the documentry refutes this.

*I ment the IPPC* 

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: You should

todangst wrote:
You should try the stickam room some night,  i haven't been in there in a while, but mostly because the topics of conversation do not interest me....not much philosophy except for doctor O, who's always good for such discussions....

Indeed. 

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I shall take the lack of

I shall take the lack of refutation to mean he is incapable of refuting my last post.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cheezues
cheezues's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I shall take the lack of refutation to mean he is incapable of refuting my last post.

I don't mean this offensively, but all of your points have been presented and developed by chaoslord better than you have, so instead of refuting both, his more advanced arguements, and your less advanced, I chose to address his with the assumption you might keep up by reading what he's said, and how I've answered him.

If you've got something else to add, please do.

I could disect this drivel.. if you want..

Quote:
Well show me a baby fighting off a bear then. Go for it. I dare ya. Baby too little? Can still be argued. However, show me a single man fighting off a lion or a bear with his bare hands and a stick. Please.

Cause it uses great logic like this...

"Babies cannot defeat bears in hand to hand combat, therefor self-defense is impossible for human beings."

"Men cannot fight off lions or bears in hand to hand combat, therefor self-defense is impossible for human beings."

... I just didn't think you were being serious.

Wait here's another...

Quote:

cheezues wrote:
Quote:
Some idiots in Montreal were surfing porn too much so they put a net nanny on the whole national system and went overboard with it. *kicks Montreal*

Good thing your government makes those decisions for you huh, take that burden off your shoulders. Who needs freedom anyway? *kicks Montreal* I mean, the government ought to punish everyone when only some of the people do something they've criminalized through law. Some people watch pr0n on HBO, no more TV for j000

How about instead of making a complete moron of yourself you become aware of the situation first? News flash: It wasn't the government, it was a corporation. In other words, yet another example of capitalism bullshit. Thank you, come again.

Chaoslord stated: "so They put a net nanny on the whole national system and went overboard with it"

They being the Government, not a coorporation. This government infringes upon the rights of the citizens of montreal.

This isn't "capitalist bullshit," Capitalism advocates small government, certainly not one powerful enough to afford placing a proxy server on an entire city.

You see, reading what you're responding to tends to help the intelligability along.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
cheezues wrote: Vastet

cheezues wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I shall take the lack of refutation to mean he is incapable of refuting my last post.

I don't mean this offensively, but all of your points have been presented and developed by chaoslord better than you have, so instead of refuting both, his more advanced arguements, and your less advanced, I chose to address his with the assumption you might keep up by reading what he's said, and how I've answered him.

If you've got something else to add, please do.

I could disect this drivel.. if you want..

You could try, and fail. As the only drivel is coming from you. And boy is there a lot of it.

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
Well show me a baby fighting off a bear then. Go for it. I dare ya. Baby too little? Can still be argued. However, show me a single man fighting off a lion or a bear with his bare hands and a stick. Please.

Cause it uses great logic like this...

More dumb ass bullshit from you. Can't even put together a cohesive argument so you attempt to discredit the statement without putting anything of value to it.

cheezues wrote:

"Babies cannot defeat bears in hand to hand combat, therefor self-defense is impossible for human beings."

"Men cannot fight off lions or bears in hand to hand combat, therefor self-defense is impossible for human beings."

Men can and do fight off bears and lions in hand to hand combat. They do not do it alone. Hence, safety in numbers.

cheezues wrote:

... I just didn't think you were being serious.

And I don't think you have any brains, but that's a different topic altogether.

cheezues wrote:

Wait here's another...

Quote:

cheezues wrote:
Quote:
Some idiots in Montreal were surfing porn too much so they put a net nanny on the whole national system and went overboard with it. *kicks Montreal*

Good thing your government makes those decisions for you huh, take that burden off your shoulders. Who needs freedom anyway? *kicks Montreal* I mean, the government ought to punish everyone when only some of the people do something they've criminalized through law. Some people watch pr0n on HBO, no more TV for j000

How about instead of making a complete moron of yourself you become aware of the situation first? News flash: It wasn't the government, it was a corporation. In other words, yet another example of capitalism bullshit. Thank you, come again.

Chaoslord stated: "so They put a net nanny on the whole national system and went overboard with it"

They being the Government, not a coorporation. This government infringes upon the rights of the citizens of montreal.

This isn't "capitalist bullshit," Capitalism advocates small government, certainly not one powerful enough to afford placing a proxy server on an entire city.

You see, reading what you're responding to tends to help the intelligability along.

Which merely shows that chaoslord wasn't paying any more attention than you were. MORON: IT WAS THE FUCKING CORPORATION, NOT A FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

Any time you want to grow some brains and say something of any value whatsoever....

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cheezues
cheezues's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You could try, and

Quote:
You could try, and fail. As the only drivel is coming from you. And boy is there a lot of it. More dumb ass bullshit from you. Can't even put together a cohesive argument so you attempt to discredit the statement without putting anything of value to it.

 Good arguements...

Quote:
Men can and do fight off bears and lions in hand to hand combat. They do not do it alone. Hence, safety in numbers.

Why and How does this Prove that self-defense is impossible for individuals?

You've created a scenario that places the human being at a disadvantage, that is... taken away his ability to use the products of his mind, tranquilizers, guns, etc...

Why, in order for self-defense to be possible for individuals, must they combat nature using only their hands?  Why not their minds?

 

Quote:
And I don't think you have any brains, but that's a different topic altogether.

Another good arguement...

Quote:
Which merely shows that chaoslord wasn't paying any more attention than you were. MORON: IT WAS THE FUCKING CORPORATION, NOT A FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

I live in America, so calling me a moron because I'm not up on Montreal's history or current affairs is baseless.  I was referencing something that was said by Chaoslord, to be in direct contradiction with what he's been saying all along...  I was using his example as an argument about how rediculous government interference is.  His example was enough to make the point, because it was a point based on a principle.  Big government is worse than small government, factually checking chaoslord on his knowledge was unecessary because he had already accepted what he was telling todangst to be the truth about the internet restriction. Based on Chaoslords example, It was reasonable for me to believe it was the government imposing such a restriction, perhaps it wasn't. 

Now, tell me what company this is, and when this happened so that I can look it up and find where the government FORCED this company to impose the restriction.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
cheezues wrote: Quote: You

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
You could try, and fail. As the only drivel is coming from you. And boy is there a lot of it. More dumb ass bullshit from you. Can't even put together a cohesive argument so you attempt to discredit the statement without putting anything of value to it.

 Good arguements...

They're certainly higher quality than yours. As my arguments will always be apparently.

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
Men can and do fight off bears and lions in hand to hand combat. They do not do it alone. Hence, safety in numbers.

Why and How does this Prove that self-defense is impossible for individuals?

I never suggested it did. I suggested that more numbers mean more safety. It's simple logic. Ever take simple logic? I didn't, but I can still maneuver through it better than you can.

cheezues wrote:

You've created a scenario that places the human being at a disadvantage, that is... taken away his ability to use the products of his mind, tranquilizers, guns, etc...

I had no idea people had guns, tranquilizers, etc 10,000 years ago. My my, you learn something every day. Hell, I didn't think people even had bows and swords back then, let alone artillary. Why can't we teleport to Mars then? Where are the laser cannons and the death stars and the lightsabers and the enterprise? I'd think 10,000 years of progress since the gun was invented would result in a better progression than we've seen. I guess we're just a stupid species.

cheezues wrote:

Why, in order for self-defense to be possible for individuals, must they combat nature using only their hands?  Why not their minds?

Minds need to develop in order to accomplish defense against a physically superior predator. Technology and information must be built upon previous technology and information to advance. Again, simple logic.

cheezues wrote:

 

Quote:
And I don't think you have any brains, but that's a different topic altogether.

Another good arguement...

That was an observation, not an argument.

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
Which merely shows that chaoslord wasn't paying any more attention than you were. MORON: IT WAS THE FUCKING CORPORATION, NOT A FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

I live in America, so calling me a moron because I'm not up on Montreal's history or current affairs is baseless.

You don't need to know jack shit about Montreal or Canada to understand and comprehend basic english. I made a comment to todangst as to why I couldn't watch a video he posted. You then made a complete and total ass of yourself by taking my explanation out of context and applying it to an organization that had nothing to do with the scenario. I don't necessarily read every post by every person in a topic. I don't have the time to. I stick to the person I'm arguing against unless I happen to notice someone else quote something I said. And there was no mention of Chaoslord or his posts in the post I responded to. Even better, he didn't post between the time I did and the time you did. So this is complete idiocy and an extension of your lies. I might be generous and assume you made an honest error, but you're too much of a dick to bother caring.

cheezues wrote:
  I was referencing something that was said by Chaoslord, to be in direct contradiction with what he's been saying all along...  I was using his example as an argument about how rediculous government interference is.  His example was enough to make the point, because it was a point based on a principle.  Big government is worse than small government, factually checking chaoslord on his knowledge was unecessary because he had already accepted what he was telling todangst to be the truth about the internet restriction. Based on Chaoslords example, It was reasonable for me to believe it was the government imposing such a restriction, perhaps it wasn't. 

Chaoslord hadn't even responded yet when you made that post. Try again.

cheezues wrote:

Now, tell me what company this is, and when this happened so that I can look it up and find where the government FORCED this company to impose the restriction.

The government didn't force the company to restrict the internet. At best the government can be accused of non-interference, but I'd hardly expect them to be able or willing to tell a company what to do regarding it's internal affairs in a capitalist society. I never even mentioned government, so I really don't know what hat you pulled this rabbit from.

And I must offer an apology to Chaoslord regarding my previous post as I assumed cheezues was telling the truth about the quote even though he wasn't. I should have looked at the rest of the topic first before making the assumption.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cheezues
cheezues's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote: They're certainly

Quote:
They're certainly higher quality than yours. As my arguments will always be apparently.

This is not an arguement.

Quote:
I never suggested it did. I suggested that more numbers mean more safety.

We were both talking about individual self-defense being possible, not less efficient.  There's a very big difference, and it's one that you didn't make in your rant, you asserted in fact, that it lead to extinction.  But you asserted it without explaining it, which was again another non-arguementative assertion.

you said: "Advancement and self defense. Lack of self defense and advancement(which society can provide, the self cannot) = extinction."

Then I told you that you were wrong by saying: "I disagree and I don't think you've got any arguement that could support an individuals inability to defend itself."

Then you referenced your "babies vs Bears" -arguement- to demonstrate that individuals can't defend themselves.

You're simply ignoring scale.  Individuals can choose and take action that advances their own lives.  Excersizing for the health benefit is an easy example.  Individuals can and do defend themselves against intruders into their homes, just as a quick example.  "Society" is just a word used to designate a group of individuals.  These individuals might decide that a government capable of organizing National-Defense (not Self-Defense) is necessary to thwart would-be invadors or to retaliate against foreign and domestic aggression.

Quote:
It's simple logic. Ever take simple logic? I didn't, but I can still maneuver through it better than you can.

I don't think it's logical to assume self-defense is impossible because babies cannot defeat bears in hand to hand combat.  You can elaborate on that example if you'd like...

 

Quote:
I had no idea people had guns, tranquilizers, etc 10,000 years ago. My my, you learn something every day. Hell, I didn't think people even had bows and swords back then, let alone artillary.

Whats all this about 10,000 years ago?  Are you trying to make a comparison to something current?  This is a logical red herring you've got here, you need to reconnect this statement to the arguement.

Quote:
Minds need to develop in order to accomplish defense against a physically superior predator. Technology and information must be built upon previous technology and information to advance. Again, simple logic.

 Since this was an extension of your red-herring argument about 10,000 years ago, I'll just point out that we have developed our minds, and technology.  Even if you eliminate the two, and talk about infants, they exist within the context of this civilization, and have guardians.  Even if you use the infant example, lets say one gets lost in the woods and a bear kills it... does that make self-defense for humanity as such impossible? no. Evidence: We're the dominant species on the planet.   I think you just said something stupid "no self-defense durr" and ran with it when I checked you on it.

 

Quote:
That was an observation, not an argument.

My new arguement now is that you're unable to present me with any points without engaging in name calling, or generalized shit-talking.

 

Quote:
I don't necessarily read every post by every person in a topic. I don't have the time to. I stick to the person I'm arguing against unless I happen to notice someone else quote something I said.

So you'll at least admit that you wouldn't know if I was addressing you or chaoslord if you were both talking about similar topics?  But you'll go so far as to engage in said, shit-talking without hesitation and without going back and reading up.   Served...

Quote:
You don't need to know jack shit about Montreal or Canada to understand and comprehend basic english.

 The term you used to refer to who carried out the ban was vague.  I went back and look this up from earlier in the thread, and it was you who said it, I thought it was chaoslord, my mistake.  Anyway, this is what you said.  (My emphasis added to parts that make one think of government intervention)

Quote:
I can't access youtube, google video, or 99% of other video carrying/gaming/etc sites anymore. Some idiots in Montreal were surfing porn too much so they put a net nanny on the whole national system and went overboard with it. *kicks Montreal*

Why would you *kick montreal* and not the company that restricted the sites?  Who specifically is "they" and how do "they" have the power to inflict such a ban on the entire national system?

You see it was a very vague statement, and the conclusion I drew was very reasonable. 

Quote:
And there was no mention of Chaoslord or his posts in the post I responded to.

You're right, it was you who said that to begin with.  Honest Error, as I've been back and forth with chaoslord much more than you.  Anyway, I've been searching the web for information on this restriction and can't find it.  Would you tell me what company did this, and when?

Quote:
I never even mentioned government, so I really don't know what hat you pulled this rabbit from.

Right it was an indirect assumption from looking at things you said like "kicks montreal"  "they" and "national system."  It seems difficult to believe a private company could have the power to restrict an entire nation, a government however could.  It was a reasonable assumption.

 

Quote:
but I'd hardly expect them to be able or willing to tell a company what to do regarding it's internal affairs in a capitalist society.

The government would be incapable of it.  Enforcing individual rights is another thing, and companies have and will walk that line.

I just want the name of the company. 


Chaoslord2004
Chaoslord2004's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
User is offlineOffline
I think we need to turn

I think we need to turn back to the original issue.  Before we can critique lasse faire capitalism, we need to have a solid definition of what it is.  If Cheezues would be so kind as to give us his definition, we can go from there.

After we have the definition, we need to ask the question:  Is lasse faire capitalism an economic system that ought to be in place? 

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions


cheezues
cheezues's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Gladly,

Gladly,

I've read through this wiki article and it's fully accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_politics

I think we can have an intelligent discussion based on it, however a more in depth discussion and defense of Capitalism, can be found in Andrew Bernstiens book, The Capitalist Manifesto.

-A society in which individual rights are consistently respected and in which all property, except for necessary government installations (courts, police stations, prisons, military bases and weapons) is (therefore) privately owned.

It's antithesis is Statism, and anything in between is undesirable. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
cheezues

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
They're certainly higher quality than yours. As my arguments will always be apparently.

This is not an arguement.

Neither was your previous post, and neither is this one. What's your point?

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
I never suggested it did. I suggested that more numbers mean more safety.

We were both talking about individual self-defense being possible, not less efficient. There's a very big difference, and it's one that you didn't make in your rant, you asserted in fact, that it lead to extinction. But you asserted it without explaining it, which was again another non-arguementative assertion.

I assumed you would realize it's self evidence. I apologize for overestimating you. I'll spell it out for you real simple like:

Earth will not last forever. It is physically incapable of sustaining our species. Regardless of what actually destroys it or makes it inhabitable, the end result is a given.
Throwing out technological advancement(societal attribute) is equal to suicide.

cheezues wrote:

you said: "Advancement and self defense. Lack of self defense and advancement(which society can provide, the self cannot) = extinction."

Then I told you that you were wrong by saying: "I disagree and I don't think you've got any arguement that could support an individuals inability to defend itself."

Then you referenced your "babies vs Bears" -arguement- to demonstrate that individuals can't defend themselves.

You're simply ignoring scale. Individuals can choose and take action that advances their own lives. Excersizing for the health benefit is an easy example. Individuals can and do defend themselves against intruders into their homes, just as a quick example. "Society" is just a word used to designate a group of individuals. These individuals might decide that a government capable of organizing National-Defense (not Self-Defense) is necessary to thwart would-be invadors or to retaliate against foreign and domestic aggression.

National defense is self defense. Individuals have choices now that weren't available when societies formed. You're using current day scenarios to address a scenario that they didn't apply in.

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
It's simple logic. Ever take simple logic? I didn't, but I can still maneuver through it better than you can.

I don't think it's logical to assume self-defense is impossible because babies cannot defeat bears in hand to hand combat. You can elaborate on that example if you'd like...

I did so in the very post I mentioned it in. I assumed you'd ridicule the baby/bear part, so I included a man/bear scenario. I find it amusing that you're stuck on the baby.

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
I had no idea people had guns, tranquilizers, etc 10,000 years ago. My my, you learn something every day. Hell, I didn't think people even had bows and swords back then, let alone artillary.

Whats all this about 10,000 years ago? Are you trying to make a comparison to something current? This is a logical red herring you've got here, you need to reconnect this statement to the arguement.

I'm not talking about current at all. Society didn't form in the last ten years oh brilliant one.

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
Minds need to develop in order to accomplish defense against a physically superior predator. Technology and information must be built upon previous technology and information to advance. Again, simple logic.

Since this was an extension of your red-herring argument about 10,000 years ago, I'll just point out that we have developed our minds, and technology. Even if you eliminate the two, and talk about infants, they exist within the context of this civilization, and have guardians. Even if you use the infant example, lets say one gets lost in the woods and a bear kills it... does that make self-defense for humanity as such impossible? no. Evidence: We're the dominant species on the planet. I think you just said something stupid "no self-defense durr" and ran with it when I checked you on it.

Obviously you're unwilling or incapable of understanding what I've said as well as being incapable of making any sense at all.

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
That was an observation, not an argument.

My new arguement now is that you're unable to present me with any points without engaging in name calling, or generalized shit-talking.

Maybe you shouldn't have been such a prick in the first place then. You can dish it out but not take it eh? I can take it as well as dish it out. I'm not a person you want to engage in such dialogue with if you can't.

cheezues wrote:
Quote:
I don't necessarily read every post by every person in a topic. I don't have the time to. I stick to the person I'm arguing against unless I happen to notice someone else quote something I said.

So you'll at least admit that you wouldn't know if I was addressing you or chaoslord if you were both talking about similar topics?

I'll do no such thing. You quoted me and posted regarding something I'd said. Something not even directed at you. It had nothing to do with Chaoslord. It was directed at Todangst.

cheezues wrote:
But you'll go so far as to engage in said, shit-talking without hesitation and without going back and reading up. Served...

Looking in the mirror are we?

cheezues wrote:

The term you used to refer to who carried out the ban was vague.

It was intended to be. I don't lay my entire personal life out on the net for all to read. Yet it clearly did not mention any government.

cheezues wrote:
I went back and look this up from earlier in the thread, and it was you who said it, I thought it was chaoslord, my mistake. Anyway, this is what you said. (My emphasis added to parts that make one think of government intervention)

Quote:
I can't access youtube, google video, or 99% of other video carrying/gaming/etc sites anymore. Some idiots in Montreal were surfing porn too much so they put a net nanny on the whole national system and went overboard with it. *kicks Montreal*

Why would you *kick montreal* and not the company that restricted the sites? Who specifically is "they" and how do "they" have the power to inflict such a ban on the entire national system?

You see it was a very vague statement, and the conclusion I drew was very reasonable.

No it wasn't. It was made to be vague for a reason, and was not interjected into the topic for you to debate over. I was giving another member information on why I could not watch a video that he posted the link for. Since this is as close to an honest question regarding the scenario as you've come to yet, I'll elaborate slightly for you, even though I don't feel the need to. The people I "kicked" were the dicks surfing porn at work. I don't blame the company for doing what it did and I likely would have done the same thing in their position. It's their system and their employees who generally use that system which is there for the companies use, not personal use(I'm a slightly different story, but don't feel the need to elaborate on that right now). I blame the dumbasses who abused the previous policies and forced the issue in the first place. I don't know who they are specifically, and even if I did I wouldn't mention who they are, but I can send a general "kick" in their direction.

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
And there was no mention of Chaoslord or his posts in the post I responded to.

You're right, it was you who said that to begin with. Honest Error, as I've been back and forth with chaoslord much more than you.

That's alright. Maybe we should start over from the beginning, since this has been corrupted by misunderstanding since the beginning.

cheezues wrote:
Anyway, I've been searching the web for information on this restriction and can't find it. Would you tell me what company did this, and when?

I don't really see the point in it. I don't actually have a problem with the company doing what it did. It just annoys me that it had to in the first place.

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
I never even mentioned government, so I really don't know what hat you pulled this rabbit from.

Right it was an indirect assumption from looking at things you said like "kicks montreal" "they" and "national system." It seems difficult to believe a private company could have the power to restrict an entire nation, a government however could. It was a reasonable assumption.

It's only an corporately internal issue, not a Canadian one. It merely happened across Canada within the corporations policies. Perhaps even internationally, though I'd be jumping to conclusions there.

cheezues wrote:

Quote:
but I'd hardly expect them to be able or willing to tell a company what to do regarding it's internal affairs in a capitalist society.

The government would be incapable of it. Enforcing individual rights is another thing, and companies have and will walk that line.

I just want the name of the company.

If they'd actually managed to enforce a corporate strategy over public policy then I'd have been screaming about it the day I heard about it. That's not what happened however.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


cheezues
cheezues's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
I'm not dealing with your

I'm not dealing with your post, you're a troll, go play somewhere else. But before you go...

Why don't you just give me the name of the company?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*Rolls eyes*

*Rolls eyes*

Thanks for conceding defeat, that ayn is a moron, you are too, and capitalism is a failure. Goodbye troll.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.