It's one thing keeping the bible out of government policy, it's another keeping equally irrational non-religious nonsense out, …strange bedfellows indeed.

From AlterNet:

"Thanks to the trail paved in Weiss’ book, we did some further digging into the money cartel financing this “spontaneous” outpouring of campus and Tea Party interest in Rand, whose work is regularly considered by top academics to be mediocre and simpleminded."

“ARI seeks to spearhead a cultural renaissance that will reverse the anti-reason, anti-individualism, anti-freedom, anti-capitalist trends in today’s culture. The major battleground in this fight for reason and capitalism is the educational institutions—high schools and, above all, the universities, where students learn the ideas that shape their lives…To date, more than 1.4 million copies of these Ayn Rand novels have been donated to 30,000 teachers in 40,000 classrooms across the United States and Canada.

“Based on a projected shelf life of five years per book, we estimate that more than 3 million young people have been introduced to Ayn Rand’s books and ideas as a result of our programs to date…partnerships have been established between ARI and the corporate community to advance Ayn Rand’s ideas in the universities." ~ Ayn Rand Institute

"Weiss piqued our curiosity when he mentions in his book that the Ayn Rand Institute based in Irvine, California is holding its annual gala fundraiser, not on the west coast, but at the swanky St. Regis hotel in Manhattan and charging $1500 a plate.  We learn further from Weiss that Arline Mann, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel of the Board of Goldman, Sachs & Company is the Co-Chair of the Ayn Rand Institute.  To move the money trail along, Weiss interviews Barry Colvin, Vice Chairman of a hedge fund, Balyasny Asset Management, who just up and decides to open a New York chapter of the Ayn Rand Institute and spearhead a fund drive." 


Views: 299

Replies to This Discussion

Ah… I made no mention of Rush or Fox News or corporate media. Just an answer.

Ha ha… are you claiming that Rush Limbaugh isn't "hate talk" and Fox News is "fair and balanced" and corporate media doesn't disinform? Just a question.

Yes I know it didn’t create the article. It picks the articles that support its agenda and publishes them.

Again, the website didn't create the article. I see now, sorry, do you actually think attacking a source instead of content is a valid argument? 

 

So, is that the entirety of your thesis here on this thread, liberal cooties?

Liberal cooties? No. What I was saying is the website publishes bias articles that promote a pro-liberal agenda. I don’t see that as an objective source.

"Ah… I made no mention of Rush or Fox News or corporate media. Just an answer."

But, …the content you specifically quoted and repudiated as "invalid", was:

...a unique model of journalism to confront the failures of corporate media[3], as well as the vitriol and disinformation of right wing media[2], especially “hate talk” media[1].

See: 

  1. Rush
  2. Fox News
  3. …corporate media

"Yes I know it didn’t create the article. It picks the articles that support its agenda and publishes them."

This is still as irrelevant as the first time you mentioned it. The author of the article is employed by Business Week and previous to that Barron's as well as a contributor to; Forbes and NY Times.

The counter-argument of "…liberal agenda" here, is not really much more than a red herring. It addresses nothing but your own prejudice and confirmation bias.

You may as well be saying that if articles claiming 2+2=4 and "the sky is blue" were published at AlterNet, …they couldn't be true.

"Liberal cooties? No."

Sorry, I think we're lost in metaphor here, I'll try the direct approach.

What definition of "liberal" do you mean?

Dictionary ones[4], or the oft muttered right-wing-Christian "culture war" cooties pejorative[5]?

  • [4]: 
liberal  (ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl) 
 
— adj

1. relating to or having social and political views that favor progress and reform
2. relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom
3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour
4. tolerant of other people
5. abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream
6. not strict; free: a liberal translation
7. of or relating to an education that aims to develop generalcultural interests and intellectual ability

— n
8. aperson who has liberal ideas or opinions

Or, do you mean...

  • [5] Liberal (noun);
  1. The playground mentality taunt uttered by; anti-feminist, anti-science, anti-egalitarian, anti-intellectual, anti-humanist, Fundamentalist Christian, anti-government (unless they're in charge), anti-social, right-wing culture war pundits; i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.

? ? ? ? ?

"What I was saying is the website publishes bias articles that promote a pro-liberal agenda. I don’t see that as an objective source."

So, your only refutation of the subject of this thread is a non sequitur? Specifically a genetic fallacy (red herring)

Liberal is a very broad term, so an accurate definition of a liberal in the US would be a social liberal. Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. Social Justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.

 

why would you join the Objectivists forum if you weren't so inclined? Just curious… Is this one of those psycho-epistemic "truths"?

 

Because you can't post there unless you join for one. Another reason is to escape the liberal agenda in atleast one forum.

Wonderful, have fun!

Still, it's curious you would be unfamiliar with the term, "Randian", y'know …considering context and all?

Not to mention what was explicit in "*so inclined":

* laissez-faire capitalism (a decidedly liberal economic theory, in this context):

*...the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Bill H yes, I write and think from the progressive, liberal point of view. I have a reason for my thoughts and actions and clearly we disagree. Yes, Ayn Rand "makes a great target for their group- think socialist agenda." That is because she has earned the right to be a target. Her basic philosophy is as immature as I have ever heard. A person who thinks he or she is the only one to take into consideration when making a personal decision does not realize the connectedness of all things. If a man and woman create a child together, which one of the three have dominion over the other two? Is it a battle of who wins and who loses? Does the father have the right to have his needs, wants, and desires met as others suffer under his boots? 

I don't know what your intent is to come to a group who has clear goals and values that differ so greatly from yours. I suppose I could go over to the site you enjoy and spread my love and joy all over the place, and I would surely not be welcome. I/we are not in the exploitation business. 

Every single human being on this planet has a birthright. I know, you are going to get out the violins and make fun of the claim. Just do what makes you happy and see if that is what makes the world a safer, happier, healthier place. None the less, I intend to pay attention to what human beings do to each other and will stand up and make one bunch of noise when I see greed and stupidity, and dishonesty, and ignorance, and delusion, and distortion, and simplistic thinking get in the way of well-being. 


“I have a reason for my thoughts and actions”

 

Doesn’t everybody?

 

“Her basic philosophy is as immature as I have ever heard.”

 

I disagree.

 

“If a man and woman create a child together, which one of the three have dominion over the other two?”

 

Both parents have control over the child until adulthood.

 

“Is it a battle of who wins and who loses?“

 

No, they should be equal partners. That’s the way married couples are supposed to be. I’m sorry that your personal situation wasn’t like this, and nothing I say can change that aspect.

 

“Does the father have the right to have his needs, wants, and desires met as others suffer under his boots?”

 

No, see my previous answer.

 

“I don't know what your intent is to come to a group who has clear goals and values that differ so greatly from yours. I suppose I could go over to the site you enjoy and spread my love and joy all over the place, and I would surely not be welcome. I/we are not in the exploitation business.”

 

My intent was to have a dialog between people to share ideas. Its called communication. If we both only go to site that totally agree with what we believe, how will we ever change or evolve as a species? Only through debate and understanding can we solve the problems of our world, if not it’s just verbal masturbation with no purpose.

 

You assume that any site I frequent you wouldn’t be welcome at. I can’t answer that because everybody has their own opinions as you have stated. You also assume that I want to exploit somebody or something, which is wrong. I don't.

 

“Every single human being on this planet has a birthright.”

 

I agree with this point.

 

“Just do what makes you happy and see if that is what makes the world a safer, happier, healthier place.”

 

Rational self-interest is a term Ayn Rand uses a lot and your statement says the same thing. Rational – reasonable and sensible. Self-interest - the placing of your own needs or desires before those of others.

 

I intend to pay attention to what human beings do to each other and will stand up and make one bunch of noise when I see greed (Subjective) and stupidity (Subjective), and dishonesty (I agree), and ignorance (Subjective), and delusion (Subjective), and distortion (I agree), and simplistic thinking (Subjective) get in the way of well-being (I agree)

"My intent was to have a dialog between people to share ideas. Its called communication. If we both only go to site that totally agree with what we believe, how will we ever change or evolve as a species? Only through debate and understanding can we solve the problems of our world, if not it’s just verbal masturbation with no purpose."

So, then what do you call ignoring the subject of discussion in favor of dropping red herrings into the mix? You have yet to address the topic yet?

Did we not have a discussion about Ayn Rand? Isn't that in the subject line?

Ahhh… I see, maybe, did you stop reading before the "and" in the title[1]?

 

[1]"And" denotes that the context is to follow, re: "and oligarchs/ Koch Bros, BB and T, Wall St…"

Back to the topic, "It's one thing keeping the bible out of government policy, it's another keeping equally irrational non-religious nonsense out, …strange bedfellows indeed."

No.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service