In Latinoamerica liberal means capitalist of free market or related to the classic liberalism or the Austrian economics school but lately is being taken by the leftists when they are looking for imposing their ideas instead of liberalise them.
@@manuelcalderon5863 In America liberal meant the same thing. Sometime in the 20th century, the Marxists took it over and it no longer had the same meaning. The left has been stealing and lying for a long time. Those nuts jobs now have the internet to spread their poison.
Well said. It's always about their feelings. Actual debates should be based off of logic and facts, not feelings or emotions. Emotions lead to bad decisions.
+RP FS Yup, it's all about the feels, impressions from other people ad populum fallacies, and conclusion based inquiries. No one really has any rational arguments against most of Rand's works unless they lower themselves into the depth's of fallacious sophistry, or argue from effect or from the perspective of a pathological altruist point of view.
+MalaklypsetheElder I just wanted to congratulate you for bringing up Pathological Altruism. I was just thinking about that hefty tome myself. I have rational arguments against some of her ideas, and her actions, but to be honest I'm yet to come across anyone else who does.
She was a bitch that wanted to FEEL moral superiority on national television by claiming to be more caring and having more knowledge without ever giving one shit of an example to why she is more caring or what knowledge she claims she has that Ayn Rand doesn't. geez, you know you are liberal when you reach that magnitude of bullshit.
@@-jg9pi Look at we are today , facets of society broken into what color your skin is, your age ,sex and education or religion in which any of these can determine if you will have employment. Society is completely bias by attempting to not be through all facets of government perverted beyond measure. Everything is communism and all at once , its what they do for the upper echelons that they serve.
@@johnmicheal3547 Question: was this debate before or after she turned on everything she ever said and accepted Social Security like a fking hypocrite?
@@jeffgojail Go look for the answer yourself. She did give her reasoning for it and IMO it was very reasonable and she kept her conviction through and through.
Rations of Rationality theres no way to remain truly objective. our emotions interfere with all of our beliefs and ideas. but i guess "objectivists" aren't influenced at all even though they worship the free market as if it isn't one economic system out of many others. and as if it doesnt have a flaws like any other.
I would say to suggest that someone feels to make an argument and the other thinks to make one because of 'feel' and 'think' in their separate arguments, isn't very thoughtful, lol...
+Psychonaut 86 Everyone is enslaved by their emotions. The person who wants to be their own master is a reaction to the emotions they feel in the thought of not getting to be their own master. They're making an effort to avoid a life in which they can't be their own master. I don't think people on the left necessarily want to serve an elite master. Some people just want to progress society and being part of the team to do so, such as being a part of scientific research, or helping to save lives of important people (if you're a doctor), and whatever, is part of their meaningful narrative. You can be the master of your own life if you live off the grid. Then just go and do it lol. Other people are walkin heeeyyaa /brooklyn accent. Other people are trying to build something...not trying to separate lol.
+Psychonaut 86 Perhaps 'enslaved' is too strong of a word. There are ways around your emotions...ways of dealing with them and seeing through them, such as meditation. But thinking of logic through the lens of Spock is incorrect. Everyone uses their emotions, or at least memories of what they do not want, and the emotions tied to such memories, to make decisions to avoid them. If you were a kid and you fell off the jungle gym and cried, that might be a powerful memory for you. You won't be so reckless in the future because you want to avoid that experience / emotion. And one can say it's logical to make that choice. Emotions are involved in logical choice. Moreover, if there's any party that's appealing to emotion and not logic, certainly it would be the party that appeals to "alternative" facts. Because, well, we all know that "alternative" facts are not facts and just points of view that make people FEEL good.
She was a big influence on Neil Peart in his lyric writing for rush (drummer/lyricist(for almost all fo their songs)). The song Anthem is based off Rand's book of the same name. If you read Anthem and listem to thei album 2112, you can't help but see a huge similarity.
"You're a cultist." "No I'm not, and don't waste my time." "No of course, I don't mean to say that you're a cultist. You don't believe in responsibility." "I DO believe in responsibility, as you can clearly see." "No, I realize that. It's just that you're trying to create an elitist society." She just presents an argument, then concedes and pretends she never stood by it as soon as she meets any resistance so that she can go to flinging more mud as if it was a continuation of the same thought. And all with such a nice, bright smile! It's too bad Rand seemed very flustered here, and did not represent herself particularly well. But these attacks are a joke as always.
I think she was taken aback by the cult comment and when you encounter someone that completely stupid, you tend to shut down your natural impulse of educating the ignorant.
So essentially what I am taking from this tirade is that Ayn Rand is incorrect because other people have needs that they cannot necessarily meet, and you feel it is our moral obligation to assist them. Also your tangent concerning the Russia in which Rand grew up, besides being irrelevant, implies that the government was responsible for the poor,' as opposed to the poor responsible for the poor. I am not entirely sure why you seem unable to stick with one idea, but concerning property - if you do not own any property then I am hard pressed to understand what power you are supposed to have besides the power over your own life. Really I'm getting a slight kink in my mind trying to organize this rabble. Your conclusion being " In order for us to take responsibility for our lives we must have both the ability and means to do so, many in reality have neither." I find it amusing you talk in "plural" form throughout this entire soliloquy, and proceed to state that without the means to "take" responsibility for your life, you are incapable of doing so. This entire phrase is self-defeating because it implies that someone must provide the "means" for you to do such a thing. Stop grovelling. Bye.
When you are invited to express your opinions about certain subjects, not to a dialogue, to a round table, you don't have to enter into arguments if you don't want to.
@@jimmoses6617 "Woke." Really? Well, I KNOW that people that use terms like that are willfully ignorant/asleep and threatened by intelligence and education. Intuition can be the result of lifetime of study and experience or a mystical, religious, belief thing.
I don't this it's so much misinterpreting as it is a difference in perception. Capitalism and socialism both work, depending on your idea of working. If you think that means the allowing individuals the rightful freedom of earning their keep in this world, then great. If you think that means living in a society where everybody works together to create a better life, then great. I think both positions are valid even though I lean towards capitalism.
Just came to say Oh. I was talking about her philosophy, not her economics. But, "socialism" and "capitalism" are just ideas. Neither are really possible to enact 'cause a completely centralized economy and a completely free one are just fantasies.
Eadmund Isen-Healf Not really. Some countries like Venezuela would be proof of that, but then states like the Finland and Uruguay prove the contrary. All economic theories are just ideas that can't ever be incorporated completely.
well,some woman, who is a smiling assassin, gets up and says- my friends used to admire your cult but we all grew up and became more responsible. that is just bad manners.
What you would really like to see is Ayn Rand say look I m sick of coming on a show and getting attacked-how about you come here and take the seat and I will bag you out hahahahha. Good comment, Thanatos- John from Sydney, Australia
@@SagaciousFrankif you disagree with someone genuinely it sparks descent, if you are trying to hoodwink someone you might have a little twinkle in your eye while doing it
"I would love to see an honorable adversary, but I have stopped hoping for it." Exactly! That liberal woman trying to confront Rand has nothing but emotions and red herrings to offer. There is no honor in that, or in trying to debate them.
That was such a mic drop moment it made my jaw drop. Also the Liberal woman with her demeanor and what she was subconsciously says 100% back up Ayn Rand's claims
OMG Debate? Today, you can't get a word in edgewise, they yell and scream and talk you down, don't let you expand on or finish your point and have no facts to back up what they say. They are successful as they are simply by being so damn LOUD and obnoxious.
She makes so much sense. Like one of my favorite mottos, "agree to disagree", but don't invade my space and force your ideas/opinions on me unless I agree to have a discussion with you.
Jen It's impossible to have a heavy discussion with the mentally ill. Someone who starts communicating with insults "you are a cult/no responsibility" is not worth anyone's time or respect. "Safe Space" Is having the door completely closed to views you do not like, while Ayn leaves the door open, if only a crack.
Define safe space. Anyway, everyone deserves to have their space respected. Unless you are telling me that I have to open my door to anyone who want to invade my space. But hey, if you're fine with that, then go for it, but not in my space.
Sounds like you are just placing yourself in an echo chamber. There’s opening mind to differing views and opinions civilly and then there’s being close-minded.
How funny. This lady calling herself "responsible" seems to have been careless with her choice of words. She didn't mean "cult"..... Blatantly irresponsible. How stupid.
@Humanity Galatica There’s a distinction that should be made between those classifiers that you used. To what extent are they all attributable to Ayn Rand? Anti:- Society? She said on occasion that living in a society with division of labor can be of great benefit for a person. Does not apply. State/Government? Same thing really, but she was not an anarchist, so this also doesn’t apply to her. Religion? Absolutely. Best reasoning for being atheist is actually provided by Ayn Rand. Applies.
@@nwoka Possibly, but when you dig deeper, you discover they are telling the precise truth, they really are expressing their feelings. What they believe is rarely based on objective facts and logic.
"As I matured, I became more responsible" is code for "I'm not strong enough to stand up for myself and live life on my terms so I'll just do what society expects of me instead and conform even though I know a life of unfiltered misery and boredom awaits me"
You forgot the operative sentence: "... and I realized there was a world around me" what Rand and her followers never seem to have the ability to do. Vicious take down of the ol bat!
@@bender9222222222 What type of awareness are you talking about? I bet Rand was more aware of the world than you. She held her values because she knew that other people don't have a right on her life like she doesn't have a right on other people's life, she was an egoist.
I don’t get angry when people do what is right for themselves on their own terms. In sacrificing myself for others, I have very temporarily made others happy and in the end, no one is completely satisfied. Doing what is helpful to me, on my terms, for myself has produced better results.
You get to live how you like as long as you don't try to force it upon me, and if you make stupid decisions, it is not my responsibility to bail you out.
I couldn't disagree more. He respectfully and skillfully mediated between his audience and his guest, playing the devil's advocate without coming across as mocking or disingenuous.
To be fair, he has some responsibility to act as a devils advocate in these conversations. That’s what a good talk show host does, present an opposing view, even if he doesn’t necessarily hold it.
Why would Ayn Rand want to converse with somebody who clearly understands nothing about philosophy? Taking the time to address that woman's misconceptions would have been an utter waste of time.
Reminds me of a passage from JRR Tolkien's The Two Towers, after Gandalf returns from death as Gandalf the White: “In one thing you have not changed, dear friend," said Aragorn: "you still speak in riddles." "What? In riddles?" said Gandalf. "No! For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers
Rand was actually a fierce debater until later in life when she became more like this. She actually hosted hours long debates most nights. I think what she was trying to say here was that this specific night wasn’t planned to be a debate, that being on this show was a platform to simply get her ideas out unimpeded.
I don't think so. It looked more like the woman in the audience didn't pose any pretense of a debate but instead tried to paint Rand as an immature unintellectual cultist. How is that a way to debate and why would Rand justify such an attack by going along with it as a debate?
Can't anyone see that she just wants to opt out. People have put this wierd spin on even opting out is the "wrong" answer. Thier determination is insufferable and Ayn probably just wants them to go elsewhere because they are expressing their views on her trying to change her mind. Where as Ayn is only expressing her views on those who came to hear.
That is how I see it, too. If someone came up to me and randomly stated that they liked red cars. I would not take offense by that and attack them by saying "No, you're wrong, green cars are better!". People are entitled to their opinions.
It's intellectually lazy to "opt out" as you say. As an honest mind you can't simply opt out of being challenged in life, that's the coward's way. That being said, it seems to me that she right in pointing out that there is an implicit accusation that she's dumb for some reason, and that's quite rude (but it may be true since she avoids criticism like the plague).
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas and say, ” . . .and that’s what I reject”?
They don't want to reason. They want to scold, and then call it a free exchange of ideas. There is nothing immoral with Rand viewing their scolding of her as not worth her time.
It wasn't a comback. The great thing about knowing what is true to you and believing in it 100% is that it's just plain logical debate. She merely drops a torch down the hole of ignorance and laughs while the light blinds them and causes them to guess what they are looking at.
7 років тому
or others might say that she was faced by weak opponents and believed she was so right in spite of being wrong - which she later more or less admitted through accepting welfare.
Orange Krush How exactly was she wrong? She worked for a living so she paid into it and deserved it. I see no hypocrisy in that. What she had to say was spot on.
7 років тому
nope - I would say that you do not know her works as well as you think you do. I am pointing out an inconsistency that she later tried to hide - and she did actively try to hide it. however I think the woman made brilliant progress on her stand against racism. She once made derogatory comments about people that collect welfare (well, more than once.) and yet - she was happy to take it , whilst actively hiding it.
Orange Krush And having said that I completely agree with the lazy bums she dismissed for collecting it like it was their primary source of income their whole lives. I see them every day. The government has done these people a great injustice.
Uthrashone Confident? What the fuck? Oh, you mean an insanely defensive, thin-skinned bully? That's what you must mean by 'confident.' Watch the video again, carefully and with an open mind. Watch her pounce on anyone who dares to even hint at disagreeing with her. That is NOT confidence. That is called being an asshole.
chuckm1961 I did watch the video. It started nicely with a carefully crafted insult, of course Rand reacted this way. Maybe if this plump princess lived in during the Bolshevik Revolution and watched her family's business get confiscated she might have a different view, or at least, be a little more respectful.
Nunya Bidness She experienced 2 revolutions The Kerensky & the Normal 0
false false false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Bolshevik revolution resulting Lenin's regime. aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution's was confiscation of her father's business. With no means of earning a living; the family escaped to the Crimea, then later to what is now St. Petersburg where they endured heinous conditions. Do a bit of research on her
Ayn Rand is the best example of the people opposite to "liberalism" being totally selfiness and blind, but at the same time so proud and secure of themselves (saddly)
Alexisthebest ever She didn't think so, mainly because she was probably a sociopath. It was her way or no way. She could not comprehend a difference in opinion, and when she was faced down by opposition, she got aggressive and personal, calling some of her once own supporters "savages" and openly insulting the audience by saying "look around you. Look how messed up these people are" Apparently her own husband even despised her.
Seán Quinn I don't know if you could call her a sociopath, that word is flung around so carelessly these days. What is clear however, is that she was mentally ill and absolutely insane.
Who's the second liberal, is it Donahue? I thought the presenters were supposed to be impartial and it's odd that Ayn was on a Q&A style interview with him only a year before this show.
I don’t care how you feel I care what you value and think. Dr ran was trying to say that when you feel responsible that means you want to take money from me and give it to someone else so you feel better
That woman asking questions, feels a lot! Can't she rationalize? Probably she'd say i'm ant feminist. Because I'm defending another woman, but not her.
+Psychonaut 86 very true. Our emotions also make us love one another. What you described sounds more like a crush. Love is far deeper, you care more about the other than yourself. You love your partner but also your family, so you try to reconcile. You may see them cheating and be heartbroken. So you decide to never see them again. They're also very emotional but more rational decisions because it's love rather than a passing crush.
"I would love to see a honorable adversary, but I stopped hoping for it!" Exactly right! What a great philosopher. Wild how viciously bullying the audience member was.
Rand's point: I'm rich, I'm confused as to why you aren't rich too. I can't be wrong because I've made my living. Paul Ryan's view makes perfect sense in this video: if you're not wealthy, then you decided not to be. Ayn Rand decided to be well off, so why can't you? See, everyone can be a millionaire, despite the fact that it defies all economic principles, but you're wrong because "I'm" rich.
Ayn Rand is like Voldemort in the liberal mind. “She who must not be named”. She nakedly exposes their own contradictory worldview. And they cannot handle that.
I just love the way Rand acts as if she acknowledges the world around her and fells compelled to serve it by holding this conference and taking the viewers question, only to turn around and say that by questioning her ideology and expressing her opposing views on her show"taking advantage" of her platform and that the people came to see her. It shows she doesn't care about the person or her question, and that the only reason she is there to begin with is to bring more attention to herself.
The lack of opportunity to clarify her values and the constant interruptions drive me insane. He point is that what one "feels and thinks" is ok with them, but it is not ok to FORCE another person to do anything based off of that "knowledge". And Rand should not have to be "tolerant" of another's counter-views on her show. That is not an obstruction of freedom of speech, that is a practice of her own right to her own production. She has produced her own following and this woman wants to take a ride on her shoulders preaching her own. Rand can accept and debate with her, or she can swat her off. This woman provided no actual argument other than insulting labels and a bunch of "I feel" arguments made separate from actual specific facts to debate on. Why should Rand even tolerate such an argument? That's like someone walking in to a WalMart and screaming "I feel that anyone here shopping is probably a rapist!" They would be immediately removed. They did not create wal mart, they do not have a right to that audience. If they want to spread reason, maybe they should say "People in walmart are rapist because of the fact that ___________". At least then there would be something to discuss other than a bunch of nonsensical assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on emotional impulse and lack of education.
Lazy people will do anything they can to divert responsibility. We have one job in this world and it is to do what we want without infringing on other people and their pursuit of happiness. Take care of yourself or you are infringing on others pursuit of happiness, I want a society of elitist, not lazy losers who expect a finite percent of the population to give their stuff to others. It is not fair.
+deklor In the video the young women believes the cartoon view of objectivism, that is, a predatory, narcissistic kind of selfishness. Yet she used to be a follower of that cartoon view. She has outgrown it, she says, so that's good, but still that fact that she used to follow it is pretty disturbing. Stay away from her, and keep your hand firmly on your wallet!
I've seen more than once when Ayn Rand is in an interview/debate it is clear the other party is not even grasping what she is saying. I don't know how she had the patience to suffer fools on such a regular basis.
People should be celebrated for being authentic and living for themselves and not attacked for it. That is the way to happiness I believe. And out of that comes common good. Kind of like Adam smith said. And if being altruistic is in someone's self interest, that's great. Liberals act as if people won't choose to be kind to others on their own and need government to force it or they feel like they need to virtue signal to prove it to others.
Have you read her books? My guess is nie you have not or you did and the meaning went over your head. She is philosopher because of her role in furthering objectivism.
I'm a liberal and I can see clearly that they where I'll equipped for this opponent, stick to the facts. I believe in helping others but I also believe that struggling and overcoming obstacles make people stronger and reap the greatest rewards.
Second part of the last sentence is true, but the first you have to be very careful about as there this is other thing called disgrace. Also, I can't hear you speak, so I would work on your orthography.
There is a big difference between believing in helping others (yourself), and believing in the government forcing you to help others. Ayn Rand has little to say about voluntary altruism - private charity and philanthropy is a strength of capitalism.
I find listening to Donahue excruciating. His condescending tone is annoying. Ayn Rand on the other hand, is a breath of fresh air. Ayn Rand spoke the truth to an audience with their hands over their ears.
"you want one of my policies? i dont deal with those who disagree." soooo, she refuses to engage with people who disagree with her....then, when the idea of having a constructive exchange of ideas with somebody, her response is "i would love to see an honorable adversary, but i've stopped hoping for it." ....what anti-intellectual bullshit.
+Sangwoo Sung nonsense. she made that statement in response to Donahue's question about her seeking debate at all....hence her 'ive given up hope looking for a worthy adversary' remark. this isn't the only time she avoids debate, I might add...
+Sangwoo Sung I do agree that the audience members were idiotic and failed to make a rational point but if 'failing to make a rational argument' always equated to 'not worth debating' in the mind of other intellectuals then Hitchens wouldn't have debated any theist ever. ;-)
+KandaPanda Rand's idea of an "honorable adversary" would be those who make such weak arguments that she could easily dismantle them. Her basic philosophy is so evil that it is usually recognized as such by all but sociopathic sycophants who hang on her every word.
+KandaPanda Hitchen's is very different. Hitchens aimed at challenging an existing position. Rand developed her own position. It is counterproductive to try and defend a philosophy based entirely on logic with those who do not follow logic.
Milton Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Roy masters, Ayn Rand, Salvador Dali, and Terence McKenna in no particular Order are figures I find to be genius and that sum up the philosophy of life to me
While value that a country loses (to continueing outsourcing of work and degradation of facilities, and national power) is not obvious, it is continuing. And while it's effect will not be our country's end, it will create more suffering than need be.
+Wesley Moreira Just to be clear, in America liberalism = socialism? Because here in Brazil liberalism refers to economic liberalism, like the idea of a society with free market standards, low or no taxes at all, no government intervention in economy, etc.
It's incorrect to think any action you take isn't self serving. When we give its either out of obligation, which we do to not feel ashamed or guilty, or its out of felt gratitude. It's feels good to give. Both as noticed have oneself in mind. A community is built of individuals who's thoughts and desires differ and the only way the community can last is by respecting each others thoughts and desires.
The host was quite the hypocrite and such a prick to her. He tried to make her seem like she had ill will towards anyone who didn't share the same beliefs which wasn't the case and yet did exactly that to her. Criminalize her for having the beliefs she does. The hypocrisy blows my mind.
The saddest part about Ayn Rands legacy is that when her atlas shrugged money ran out she ended up on government benefits. What a great and disappointing contradiction. In the end she too needed her fellow man to help her survive
Ah she got carried away here. She wouldn't have got to her current (current within the video) position if it was not for stepping into people's door steps. According to what she said, there's no point of the show. Everyone should just read her books.
Knights2theEnd nah she said don't use her invited time up, with opposition. she came to further xplain her books. she wanted someone 'with her' to ask a question, on her dime. that's all.
Knights2theEnd dont disagree wth the cult or be put in line by it's members. The Jungle is a better book, not so many nieve characters like her books have.
Knights2theEnd. If she disagreed with Rand's book then she should've explain what exactly she disagrees with and why... but all that liberal lady did was insult her "cult" and say she had an outdated philosophy (in her own sneaky subtle way) without really explaining her reasons... which i suspect she didn't because shes emotional and couldn't pass up the opportunity of boosting her ego at rands expense "I feel my new and improved philosophy is better than yours.. i feel :-) "
Feeling don't matter. Logic matters. The three most important human needs: hunger, logic and lust. This is why unrestrained capitalism is the best system. Survival of the fittest. If you trip and fall while running with the herd, it's your own fault. Get trampled. If someone trips you up, and you fall, just accept that fate. Get up or get trampled. Only the strong survive. The weak are there to feed the predators. When it's your time to die, don't fret, just do it. All this emotional stuff is garbage.
The big mistake in your thinking, dear commenters, is that the beauty of sentience is in the combination of heart and mind. The feeling and the thinking. Compassion and reason. The interplay between our big brain and our consience. One is helpless without the other. To demonstrate using, freely, a Steven Erikson trick of words: purely rational reasoning leads to blind selfinterest, which leads to indifference in the wellbeing of the other, which leads to inability to work collectivly when needed, which leads to stagnation of creativity in the species, leading to the end of civillisation. Also: purely emotional action leads to loss of perspective, which leads to fear, which leads to immobility in the face of problematic situations, which leads to the stagnation of creativity in the species, leading, again, to the end of civillisation. Both these patterns are, of course, generalisations, but are based in Rand's brand of philosophy. Reason and emotion both are what makes us what we are. One without the other is a sure path to psychopatic behaviour.
We should stop using the term "liberal" to describe the left.
Regressive Left , Marxists , Communist, Collectivists, etc. The word individual and self are taboo to these people.
Communal brain washed masses of low browed, knuckle dragging Neanderthals.
In Latinoamerica liberal means capitalist of free market or related to the classic liberalism or the Austrian economics school but lately is being taken by the leftists when they are looking for imposing their ideas instead of liberalise them.
ua-cam.com/video/tlIjMJBSnRE/v-deo.html
@@manuelcalderon5863 In America liberal meant the same thing. Sometime in the 20th century, the Marxists took it over and it no longer had the same meaning. The left has been stealing and lying for a long time. Those nuts jobs now have the internet to spread their poison.
"...I feel ... cult ... I've matured ...there are other people ...elitist ...selfish"
No actual arguments. Same today as it was back then.
Well said. It's always about their feelings. Actual debates should be based off of logic and facts, not feelings or emotions. Emotions lead to bad decisions.
+RP FS Yup, it's all about the feels, impressions from other people ad populum fallacies, and conclusion based inquiries. No one really has any rational arguments against most of Rand's works unless they lower themselves into the depth's of fallacious sophistry, or argue from effect or from the perspective of a pathological altruist point of view.
+MalaklypsetheElder I just wanted to congratulate you for bringing up Pathological Altruism. I was just thinking about that hefty tome myself.
I have rational arguments against some of her ideas, and her actions, but to be honest I'm yet to come across anyone else who does.
She was a bitch that wanted to FEEL moral superiority on national television by claiming to be more caring and having more knowledge without ever giving one shit of an example to why she is more caring or what knowledge she claims she has that Ayn Rand doesn't. geez, you know you are liberal when you reach that magnitude of bullshit.
Urgh, every time she opens her mouth I want to punch it
Ayn was never against responsibility.
Quite the opposite!
Yes, quite the opposite! She's for INDIVIDUAL responsibility. Which is basically what responsibility means.
exactly, she believed the ideal man should be principled, honest and rational.
@@haydenwilsonx yeah. infact she advocated for the highest amount of responsibility.
Being a sociopath requires none. Thats her whole point. Just a selfish skank.
She sat there calmly explaining her ideas while not a single person in the room even remotely understood any of it.
How do you know they didn't understand it?
@@-jg9pi Look at we are today , facets of society broken into what color your skin is, your age ,sex and education or religion in which any of these can determine if you will have employment. Society is completely bias by attempting to not be through all facets of government perverted beyond measure. Everything is communism and all at once , its what they do for the upper echelons that they serve.
What a perfect explanation
To .many blank stares😮@@-jg9pi
They did,. She just said she doesn't enjoy discussing different views.... Thats fine,,,if this is what you want to be ,,,, ,
Audience Member "I came here to tell you your wrong"
Rand "Why didnt you go and prove it instead?"
Rand actually told her to go practice it.
Like she said it's ok to walk off the cliff and rand told her to go do it. Lol
@@johnmicheal3547
Question: was this debate before or after she turned on everything she ever said and accepted Social Security like a fking hypocrite?
@@jeffgojail Go look for the answer yourself. She did give her reasoning for it and IMO it was very reasonable and she kept her conviction through and through.
... you're.
@@bender9222222222 ...momma
The liberal uses the word "feel"
Rand uses the word "think"
Rations of Rationality theres no way to remain truly objective. our emotions interfere with all of our beliefs and ideas. but i guess "objectivists" aren't influenced at all even though they worship the free market as if it isn't one economic system out of many others. and as if it doesnt have a flaws like any other.
I would say to suggest that someone feels to make an argument and the other thinks to make one because of 'feel' and 'think' in their separate arguments, isn't very thoughtful, lol...
+Psychonaut 86 Everyone is enslaved by their emotions. The person who wants to be their own master is a reaction to the emotions they feel in the thought of not getting to be their own master. They're making an effort to avoid a life in which they can't be their own master. I don't think people on the left necessarily want to serve an elite master. Some people just want to progress society and being part of the team to do so, such as being a part of scientific research, or helping to save lives of important people (if you're a doctor), and whatever, is part of their meaningful narrative. You can be the master of your own life if you live off the grid. Then just go and do it lol. Other people are walkin heeeyyaa /brooklyn accent. Other people are trying to build something...not trying to separate lol.
Ration. Sadly, you're correct. I feel, therefore I am is their mantra. Descartes is rolling in his grave.
+Psychonaut 86
Perhaps 'enslaved' is too strong of a word. There are ways around your emotions...ways of dealing with them and seeing through them, such as meditation. But thinking of logic through the lens of Spock is incorrect. Everyone uses their emotions, or at least memories of what they do not want, and the emotions tied to such memories, to make decisions to avoid them. If you were a kid and you fell off the jungle gym and cried, that might be a powerful memory for you. You won't be so reckless in the future because you want to avoid that experience / emotion. And one can say it's logical to make that choice. Emotions are involved in logical choice. Moreover, if there's any party that's appealing to emotion and not logic, certainly it would be the party that appeals to "alternative" facts. Because, well, we all know that "alternative" facts are not facts and just points of view that make people FEEL good.
"I would love to see a honourable adversary, but I stopped hoping for it!".
This woman was Amazing!!! Just discovered of her in 2021!
Ayn Rand -- Atlas Shrugged, Part 3- Ch. 3: Anti-Life
She was a big influence on Neil Peart in his lyric writing for rush (drummer/lyricist(for almost all fo their songs)). The song Anthem is based off Rand's book of the same name. If you read Anthem and listem to thei album 2112, you can't help but see a huge similarity.
I am writing to you from the future and nothing's changed.
Ron Paul named his son rand Paul after her .
"You're a cultist."
"No I'm not, and don't waste my time."
"No of course, I don't mean to say that you're a cultist. You don't believe in responsibility."
"I DO believe in responsibility, as you can clearly see."
"No, I realize that. It's just that you're trying to create an elitist society."
She just presents an argument, then concedes and pretends she never stood by it as soon as she meets any resistance so that she can go to flinging more mud as if it was a continuation of the same thought. And all with such a nice, bright smile! It's too bad Rand seemed very flustered here, and did not represent herself particularly well. But these attacks are a joke as always.
I think she was taken aback by the cult comment and when you encounter someone that completely stupid, you tend to shut down your natural impulse of educating the ignorant.
Ayn Rands premise is that we are responsible. For OUR OWN lives. Not others, YOU are not my responsibility.
So essentially what I am taking from this tirade is that Ayn Rand is incorrect because other people have needs that they cannot necessarily meet, and you feel it is our moral obligation to assist them. Also your tangent concerning the Russia in which Rand grew up, besides being irrelevant, implies that the government was responsible for the poor,' as opposed to the poor responsible for the poor.
I am not entirely sure why you seem unable to stick with one idea, but concerning property - if you do not own any property then I am hard pressed to understand what power you are supposed to have besides the power over your own life. Really I'm getting a slight kink in my mind trying to organize this rabble.
Your conclusion being " In order for us to take responsibility for our lives we must have both the ability and means to do so, many in reality have neither."
I find it amusing you talk in "plural" form throughout this entire soliloquy, and proceed to state that without the means to "take" responsibility for your life, you are incapable of doing so. This entire phrase is self-defeating because it implies that someone must provide the "means" for you to do such a thing.
Stop grovelling.
Bye.
Bite me, ( Not a cultist. )
Evening, gents.
***** Attacking me because you have no rebuttal.
#RIPDEBATE
- Afternoon, gents.
I feel, I feel, I feel. Let's get the feeling out of it and stick to the facts.
I agree. Feelings are nice but they will only go so far in life. Let's stick to the facts.
In this case Ayn rand was being the more emotional events.
Facts don't stick to Rand
“I would love to see an honorable adversary but I have stopped hoping for it.” Damn!
This leftist came to preach and insult Rand while pretending to ask a question. Rand's response was appropriate if not too nice.
+Adrian1918 Oh the money I would pay for the opportunity to slap that shit eating grin right off her face.
They came to debate
She sounds like the spoiled brats looting right now. Damn libs.
The leftist has such a punchable smirk, but Rand's last line is perfect. The leftist had no ideas, just insults and emotional rhetoric.
@@Mixolydian7712 That smile was the classic arrogance of the narcissist. She talked of maturity! Conservatism is where I came to when I matured!
One of the most annoying things somebody can say when beginning their argument is "I feel". I don't care how you "feel".
Yes. Very popular among the woke to say "I feel like...". What about "I BELIEVE"? Or "I Understand that..."? Or even "I Think"?
@@lennypinskiy6598 Facts don't care about our feelings.
When you are invited to express your opinions about certain subjects, not to a dialogue, to a round table, you don't have to enter into arguments if you don't want to.
@@jimmoses6617 "Woke." Really? Well, I KNOW that people that use terms like that are willfully ignorant/asleep and threatened by intelligence and education. Intuition can be the result of lifetime of study and experience or a mystical, religious, belief thing.
@@markclipsham9199 "Woke" is a term they use to describe themselves. Try and keep up.
I'm barely discovering Ayn Rand today. It seems most of the criticism she gets are dense misinterpretations of her "tenets" (if you will).
I don't this it's so much misinterpreting as it is a difference in perception. Capitalism and socialism both work, depending on your idea of working. If you think that means the allowing individuals the rightful freedom of earning their keep in this world, then great. If you think that means living in a society where everybody works together to create a better life, then great. I think both positions are valid even though I lean towards capitalism.
Socialism _works_, if by "works" you mean leeches off of the gains made through capitalism until nobody has anything left.
Just came to say Oh. I was talking about her philosophy, not her economics. But, "socialism" and "capitalism" are just ideas. Neither are really possible to enact 'cause a completely centralized economy and a completely free one are just fantasies.
Eadmund Isen-Healf Not really. Some countries like Venezuela would be proof of that, but then states like the Finland and Uruguay prove the contrary.
All economic theories are just ideas that can't ever be incorporated completely.
Andrés Gómez
Yes really. It's very telling that people always have to give mixed economies as evidence of "successful" socialist countries.
Leftist logic: you MUST agree that we have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to disagree.
I couldn't understand that woman. Just a bunch of words, yet Ayn could respond with proficiency. Amazing.
well,some woman, who is a smiling assassin, gets up and says- my friends used to admire your cult but we all grew up and became more responsible. that is just bad manners.
What you would really like to see is Ayn Rand say look I m sick of coming on a show and getting attacked-how about you come here and take the seat and I will bag you out hahahahha. Good comment, Thanatos- John from Sydney, Australia
yeah then she retracted immediately, ironically shirking any responsibility for her own action.
Never trust anybody who smiles while they tell someone else they’re wrong
gad damn dude. good advice.
oh. this is something that I have never realised. you are right. thank you
What? The smile police here.
@@SagaciousFrankif you disagree with someone genuinely it sparks descent, if you are trying to hoodwink someone you might have a little twinkle in your eye while doing it
I have noticed.
"I would love to see an honorable adversary, but I have stopped hoping for it."
Exactly! That liberal woman trying to confront Rand has nothing but emotions and red herrings to offer. There is no honor in that, or in trying to debate them.
That was such a mic drop moment it made my jaw drop.
Also the Liberal woman with her demeanor and what she was subconsciously says 100% back up Ayn Rand's claims
OMG Debate? Today, you can't get a word in edgewise, they yell and scream and talk you down, don't let you expand on or finish your point and have no facts to back up what they say. They are successful as they are simply by being so damn LOUD and obnoxious.
Unfortunately from what i can tell thats the main trait that differentiates right vs left
feel feel feel.
So emotional
She makes so much sense. Like one of my favorite mottos, "agree to disagree", but don't invade my space and force your ideas/opinions on me unless I agree to have a discussion with you.
Alex hmmmmm.... kind of like a safe space!
Jen
It's impossible to have a heavy discussion with the mentally ill. Someone who starts communicating with insults "you are a cult/no responsibility" is not worth anyone's time or respect. "Safe Space" Is having the door completely closed to views you do not like, while Ayn leaves the door open, if only a crack.
Define safe space. Anyway, everyone deserves to have their space respected. Unless you are telling me that I have to open my door to anyone who want to invade my space. But hey, if you're fine with that, then go for it, but not in my space.
Alex you make so much sense but it's all getting worse
Sounds like you are just placing yourself in an echo chamber. There’s opening mind to differing views and opinions civilly and then there’s being close-minded.
How funny. This lady calling herself "responsible" seems to have been careless with her choice of words. She didn't mean "cult"..... Blatantly irresponsible. How stupid.
How crazy, that someone can be responsible and at the same time make a mistake.
Her last quote was the truth... not comedy.
“I would love to see an honorable adversary” I haven’t really heard of one yet either. If anyone knows of any please let me know so I can learn more
@Humanity Galatica because a woman dared to speak up? misogyny is the liberal's ultimate substance of sustenance.
@Humanity Galatica There’s a distinction that should be made between those classifiers that you used. To what extent are they all attributable to Ayn Rand?
Anti:-
Society? She said on occasion that living in a society with division of labor can be of great benefit for a person. Does not apply.
State/Government? Same thing really, but she was not an anarchist, so this also doesn’t apply to her.
Religion? Absolutely. Best reasoning for being atheist is actually provided by Ayn Rand. Applies.
@@gasun1274 needless words don’t make you sound smarter
I feel... The first words that show you are wrong.
Can you read?
I feel can also mean "in my opinion ". Example : I feel we should do ____ can be rephrased as In my opinion, we should do ____.
@@nwoka Possibly, but when you dig deeper, you discover they are telling the precise truth, they really are expressing their feelings. What they believe is rarely based on objective facts and logic.
"As I matured, I became more responsible" is code for "I'm not strong enough to stand up for myself and live life on my terms so I'll just do what society expects of me instead and conform even though I know a life of unfiltered misery and boredom awaits me"
You forgot the operative sentence: "... and I realized there was a world around me" what Rand and her followers never seem to have the ability to do. Vicious take down of the ol bat!
@@bender9222222222 What type of awareness are you talking about? I bet Rand was more aware of the world than you.
She held her values because she knew that other people don't have a right on her life like she doesn't have a right on other people's life, she was an egoist.
@@notyourbruh she opposed governmental welfare programs yet collected social security and medicaid. She didn't even believe in her own philosophy. Lol
@@bender9222222222 Because she had paid welfare taxes she is entitiled to take it back when government offers it back.
Also this is a personal criticism of her, not her philosophy
I don’t get angry when people do what is right for themselves on their own terms. In sacrificing myself for others, I have very temporarily made others happy and in the end, no one is completely satisfied. Doing what is helpful to me, on my terms, for myself has produced better results.
her philosophy can be summed up by this phrase..."live and let live"
Not really
You get to live how you like as long as you don't try to force it upon me, and if you make stupid decisions, it is not my responsibility to bail you out.
So what was that woman’s question?? I still don’t know.
Donahue's pandering to the audience leftists is blatantly awkward & amateurish .
scuttermax852 That's Donahue for you. Donahue had his clock cleaned by Milton Friedman.
I couldn't disagree more. He respectfully and skillfully mediated between his audience and his guest, playing the devil's advocate without coming across as mocking or disingenuous.
To be fair, he has some responsibility to act as a devils advocate in these conversations. That’s what a good talk show host does, present an opposing view, even if he doesn’t necessarily hold it.
@@keithwilson6060 Though I sometimes perceived Donahue as somewhat smarmy, he usually maintained a balanced, third person objectivity.
@@aliensoup2420
Definitely. And compared to the talk show fare these days, he’s downright CONSERVATIVE.
What an incredible woman!!
I haven't ran into any woman that thinks quite as rationally as she does.
Margaret Thatcher?
Men are quite the same.
I've yet to encounter anyone who thinks as rationally as she does
@@jenniferellison3480 Yup!
As far as women goes, haven’t heard her equal yet
Yeah that audience member ran through her like tissue paper!
It's great to see Any pick apart the socialists in the audience, including the most progressive of them - the host.
She did say in another interview conservatives are worse than liberals
Why would Ayn Rand want to converse with somebody who clearly understands nothing about philosophy? Taking the time to address that woman's misconceptions would have been an utter waste of time.
Reminds me of a passage from JRR Tolkien's The Two Towers, after Gandalf returns from death as Gandalf the White:
“In one thing you have not changed, dear friend," said Aragorn: "you still speak in riddles."
"What? In riddles?" said Gandalf. "No! For I was talking aloud to myself. A habit of the old: they choose the wisest person present to speak to; the long explanations needed by the young are wearying.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Two Towers
Ironically, Ayn was telling her that responsibility starts at home. If everyone starts there, then the world would have far fewer problems.
Rand was actually a fierce debater until later in life when she became more like this. She actually hosted hours long debates most nights. I think what she was trying to say here was that this specific night wasn’t planned to be a debate, that being on this show was a platform to simply get her ideas out unimpeded.
I don't think so. It looked more like the woman in the audience didn't pose any pretense of a debate but instead tried to paint Rand as an immature unintellectual cultist. How is that a way to debate and why would Rand justify such an attack by going along with it as a debate?
So this was before Chris Pratt was in Parks and Recreation.
Nat Brown I wish there'd be a scene with Ron Swanson making a shrine to her.
The Pan-Michigander makes no sense, Ron Swanson is a Protestant.
Can't anyone see that she just wants to opt out. People have put this wierd spin on even opting out is the "wrong" answer. Thier determination is insufferable and Ayn probably just wants them to go elsewhere because they are expressing their views on her trying to change her mind. Where as Ayn is only expressing her views on those who came to hear.
Ópting out is one thing believing in Ayn Rand is another.
Chase H. ik
That is how I see it, too. If someone came up to me and randomly stated that they liked red cars. I would not take offense by that and attack them by saying "No, you're wrong, green cars are better!". People are entitled to their opinions.
It's intellectually lazy to "opt out" as you say. As an honest mind you can't simply opt out of being challenged in life, that's the coward's way. That being said, it seems to me that she right in pointing out that there is an implicit accusation that she's dumb for some reason, and that's quite rude (but it may be true since she avoids criticism like the plague).
That's also not intellectually honest. You can't disprove the soundness of an idea by proclaiming it, or its followers as a mental disorder.
She died months before I was born. I wish I could have known her. The most incredible woman who ever lived.
Are you serious? She was just a cunt, who tried to attach a philosophy to being a sociopath.
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort
everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason,
not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and
association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a
live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an
END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare
honestly state these ideas and say, ” . . .and that’s what I reject”?
This woman is so great!!!!!!
Imagine what it would feel like to be scolded on national tv by Ayn Rand herself... WOW
They don't want to reason. They want to scold, and then call it a free exchange of ideas. There is nothing immoral with Rand viewing their scolding of her as not worth her time.
i love this unmovable woman, i love you Ayn.
"I would love to see an honourable adversary, but I've stopped hoping for it" bloody hell I love Ayn.
She had the best comebacks.
It wasn't a comback. The great thing about knowing what is true to you and believing in it 100% is that it's just plain logical debate. She merely drops a torch down the hole of ignorance and laughs while the light blinds them and causes them to guess what they are looking at.
or others might say that she was faced by weak opponents and believed she was so right in spite of being wrong - which she later more or less admitted through accepting welfare.
Orange Krush
How exactly was she wrong? She worked for a living so she paid into it and deserved it. I see no hypocrisy in that. What she had to say was spot on.
nope - I would say that you do not know her works as well as you think you do. I am pointing out an inconsistency that she later tried to hide - and she did actively try to hide it. however I think the woman made brilliant progress on her stand against racism. She once made derogatory comments about people that collect welfare (well, more than once.) and yet - she was happy to take it , whilst actively hiding it.
Orange Krush
And having said that I completely agree with the lazy bums she dismissed for collecting it like it was their primary source of income their whole lives. I see them every day. The government has done these people a great injustice.
She Is truly someone not afraid to be confident. And there's no reason to disbelieve her, I've yet to hear someone as rational and true as her
Uthrashone Confident? What the fuck? Oh, you mean an insanely defensive, thin-skinned bully? That's what you must mean by 'confident.' Watch the video again, carefully and with an open mind. Watch her pounce on anyone who dares to even hint at disagreeing with her. That is NOT confidence. That is called being an asshole.
chuckm1961
I did watch the video. It started nicely with a carefully crafted insult, of course Rand reacted this way. Maybe if this plump princess lived in during the Bolshevik Revolution and watched her family's business get confiscated she might have a different view, or at least, be a little more respectful.
Nunya Bidness She experienced 2 revolutions The Kerensky & the
Normal
0
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Bolshevik revolution resulting Lenin's regime. aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution's was confiscation of her father's business. With no means of earning a living; the family escaped to the Crimea, then later to what is now St. Petersburg where they endured heinous conditions. Do a bit of research on her
scuttermax852
What's your point?
Anthony Badessa
But of course if it was a philosophy you agreed with, then she'd be nothing more than a victim trying to right wrongs.
Ayn Rand is the best example of the people opposite to "liberalism" being totally selfiness and blind, but at the same time so proud and secure of themselves (saddly)
She died from cancer (which she developed from being a chain smoker) in a national health hospital on social security and medicare. Oh, the irony.
I know right, she benefited from the very things she claimed to despise.
Alexisthebest ever She was nothing but a sociopathic, carless, egoistical bitch, who for some reason, turned selfishness into an ideology.
Seán Quinn Humans are inherently altruistic and cooperative. It's how we survived as a species, working together, rather than acting singly.
Alexisthebest ever She didn't think so, mainly because she was probably a sociopath. It was her way or no way. She could not comprehend a difference in opinion, and when she was faced down by opposition, she got aggressive and personal, calling some of her once own supporters "savages" and openly insulting the audience by saying "look around you. Look how messed up these people are" Apparently her own husband even despised her.
Seán Quinn I don't know if you could call her a sociopath, that word is flung around so carelessly these days. What is clear however, is that she was mentally ill and absolutely insane.
the fact is I'm not anyone's keeper other than myself trying to force ppl to take care of you only breeds resentment
"I don't deal with those who disagree"
Wow
It's gonna take a lot more than two liberals to make a coherent argument
How many liberals does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Who's the second liberal, is it Donahue? I thought the presenters were supposed to be impartial and it's odd that Ayn was on a Q&A style interview with him only a year before this show.
Where there is 'common sense capitalism', it certainly can't be found with Ayn Rand.
That last line says it all.
"I'd love to see an admirable adversary but I stopped hoping for it." BAM
I'm limited to posting the entire show until January, but we will have them then.
The woman actually thought she's woke
I don’t care how you feel I care what you value and think. Dr ran was trying to say that when you feel responsible that means you want to take money from me and give it to someone else so you feel better
That woman asking questions, feels a lot!
Can't she rationalize?
Probably she'd say i'm ant feminist.
Because I'm defending another woman, but not her.
+Alan Rodrigues Rationalize is not the word you're looking for.
+Luke Kent What word would it be?
It wouldn't be a word. It would be an acronym 'STFU'. lmao
+Psychonaut 86 you can rationalise why you feel something. Feeling is what makes us human rather than just a computer.
+Psychonaut 86 very true. Our emotions also make us love one another. What you described sounds more like a crush. Love is far deeper, you care more about the other than yourself. You love your partner but also your family, so you try to reconcile. You may see them cheating and be heartbroken. So you decide to never see them again. They're also very emotional
but more rational decisions because it's love rather than a passing crush.
"I would love to see a honorable adversary, but I stopped hoping for it!" Exactly right! What a great philosopher. Wild how viciously bullying the audience member was.
It wasn't bullying.
Rand's point: I'm rich, I'm confused as to why you aren't rich too. I can't be wrong because I've made my living. Paul Ryan's view makes perfect sense in this video: if you're not wealthy, then you decided not to be. Ayn Rand decided to be well off, so why can't you? See, everyone can be a millionaire, despite the fact that it defies all economic principles, but you're wrong because "I'm" rich.
Those people creep me out. They definitely aren't picking up what she's laying down.
I read so many comments here and your is the best
I want to hold only of my ideas! It felt good when she said it.
My mother taught me to never argue with an idiot because you have to stoop down to their level! Rand refused to step down to that level !
Ayn Rand is like Voldemort in the liberal mind. “She who must not be named”. She nakedly exposes their own contradictory worldview. And they cannot handle that.
I just love the way Rand acts as if she acknowledges the world around her and fells compelled to serve it by holding this conference and taking the viewers question, only to turn around and say that by questioning her ideology and expressing her opposing views on her show"taking advantage" of her platform and that the people came to see her. It shows she doesn't care about the person or her question, and that the only reason she is there to begin with is to bring more attention to herself.
what question?!
Ayn Rand definitely far from the top of her game here. Sort of sad.
That comeback at the end though
What's the "incident" from the show last year she refers to in the beginning?
The lack of opportunity to clarify her values and the constant interruptions drive me insane. He point is that what one "feels and thinks" is ok with them, but it is not ok to FORCE another person to do anything based off of that "knowledge". And Rand should not have to be "tolerant" of another's counter-views on her show. That is not an obstruction of freedom of speech, that is a practice of her own right to her own production. She has produced her own following and this woman wants to take a ride on her shoulders preaching her own. Rand can accept and debate with her, or she can swat her off. This woman provided no actual argument other than insulting labels and a bunch of "I feel" arguments made separate from actual specific facts to debate on. Why should Rand even tolerate such an argument?
That's like someone walking in to a WalMart and screaming "I feel that anyone here shopping is probably a rapist!" They would be immediately removed. They did not create wal mart, they do not have a right to that audience. If they want to spread reason, maybe they should say "People in walmart are rapist because of the fact that ___________". At least then there would be something to discuss other than a bunch of nonsensical assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on emotional impulse and lack of education.
Lazy people will do anything they can to divert responsibility. We have one job in this world and it is to do what we want without infringing on other people and their pursuit of happiness. Take care of yourself or you are infringing on others pursuit of happiness, I want a society of elitist, not lazy losers who expect a finite percent of the population to give their stuff to others. It is not fair.
As she grew older she stopped being scary and just became another adorably stubborn old Russian lady
Thanks for posting this. Is there a link to the whole debate ?
"I feel", "I've matured", "I believe", "your cult"... Now, that is how you argue with Ayn Rand. You go, girl!
+deklor
In the video the young women believes the cartoon view of objectivism, that is, a predatory, narcissistic kind of selfishness. Yet she used to be a follower of that cartoon view. She has outgrown it, she says, so that's good, but still that fact that she used to follow it is pretty disturbing. Stay away from her, and keep your hand firmly on your wallet!
Why can't he let Ayn talk?
We have an elite society . Why are a hundred thousand migrants to Texas not news and fifty to Martha Vineyard a crisis?
I've seen more than once when Ayn Rand is in an interview/debate it is clear the other party is not even grasping what she is saying. I don't know how she had the patience to suffer fools on such a regular basis.
People should be celebrated for being authentic and living for themselves and not attacked for it. That is the way to happiness I believe. And out of that comes common good. Kind of like Adam smith said. And if being altruistic is in someone's self interest, that's great. Liberals act as if people won't choose to be kind to others on their own and need government to force it or they feel like they need to virtue signal to prove it to others.
Compelled thought and speech is the stuff of which hypocrisy is made.
She flat out insulted Rand before she began her rambling.
Rand was lightyears ahead of her time.
Still is.
Truth is never without controversy
She died broke, alone, and in public housing.
"Philosopher" my ass. She's a writer, and even that's being generous.
Have you read her books? My guess is nie you have not or you did and the meaning went over your head. She is philosopher because of her role in furthering objectivism.
I'm a liberal and I can see clearly that they where I'll equipped for this opponent, stick to the facts. I believe in helping others but I also believe that struggling and overcoming obstacles make people stronger and reap the greatest rewards.
Second part of the last sentence is true, but the first you have to be very careful about as there this is other thing called disgrace.
Also, I can't hear you speak, so I would work on your orthography.
There is a big difference between believing in helping others (yourself), and believing in the government forcing you to help others. Ayn Rand has little to say about voluntary altruism - private charity and philanthropy is a strength of capitalism.
Are you a liberal or a leftist? Look up the definition of classic liberalism...
I find listening to Donahue excruciating. His condescending tone is annoying. Ayn Rand on the other hand, is a breath of fresh air. Ayn Rand spoke the truth to an audience with their hands over their ears.
The best grumpy grandma ever.
"you want one of my policies? i dont deal with those who disagree." soooo, she refuses to engage with people who disagree with her....then, when the idea of having a constructive exchange of ideas with somebody, her response is "i would love to see an honorable adversary, but i've stopped hoping for it."
....what anti-intellectual bullshit.
+Sangwoo Sung nonsense. she made that statement in response to Donahue's question about her seeking debate at all....hence her 'ive given up hope looking for a worthy adversary' remark. this isn't the only time she avoids debate, I might add...
+Sangwoo Sung I do agree that the audience members were idiotic and failed to make a rational point but if 'failing to make a rational argument' always equated to 'not worth debating' in the mind of other intellectuals then Hitchens wouldn't have debated any theist ever. ;-)
+KandaPanda Rand's idea of an "honorable adversary" would be those who make such weak arguments that she could easily dismantle them. Her basic philosophy is so evil that it is usually recognized as such by all but sociopathic sycophants who hang on her every word.
+Fred Azbell Do you have any logical argument against her philosophy, or simply arguments based on emotion?
+KandaPanda Hitchen's is very different. Hitchens aimed at challenging an existing position. Rand developed her own position. It is counterproductive to try and defend a philosophy based entirely on logic with those who do not follow logic.
Milton Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Roy masters, Ayn Rand, Salvador Dali, and Terence McKenna in no particular Order are figures I find to be genius and that sum up the philosophy of life to me
Martin Nyaga I second that notion. Thomas Sowell is the man.
Uthrashone People still don't listen.
+Uthrashone What a tragedy, and what an odd crowd to put together.
+Uthrashone You should be ashamed to admit Ayn Rand is an influence over you.
+Uthrashone peculiar list. hitchens didn't agree with Rand's views for one
I really love this woman XD
The poor audience member had no idea what she was even talking about. She will never reach Nirvana without becoming more rational.
Never say "I feel". THINK, why doesn't she say, "I think".
Say whatever, Rand was right about how fckd american society has become with positivism and liberalism.
You're dumb. Next.
myxomats1s Why resort to insults? It makes you look, what's the word...oh, right...dumb, sir.
myxomats1s
insult into dismiss.
While value that a country loses (to continueing outsourcing of work and degradation of facilities, and national power) is not obvious, it is continuing. And while it's effect will not be our country's end, it will create more suffering than need be.
+Wesley Moreira Just to be clear, in America liberalism = socialism?
Because here in Brazil liberalism refers to economic liberalism, like the idea of a society with free market standards, low or no taxes at all, no government intervention in economy, etc.
It's incorrect to think any action you take isn't self serving. When we give its either out of obligation, which we do to not feel ashamed or guilty, or its out of felt gratitude. It's feels good to give. Both as noticed have oneself in mind. A community is built of individuals who's thoughts and desires differ and the only way the community can last is by respecting each others thoughts and desires.
The freedom to utter nonsense lol. Love it
I wonder what year this is?
The host was quite the hypocrite and such a prick to her. He tried to make her seem like she had ill will towards anyone who didn't share the same beliefs which wasn't the case and yet did exactly that to her. Criminalize her for having the beliefs she does. The hypocrisy blows my mind.
Vincent Rojas thats agent phil donahue.an elite liberal we should all blame for modern talk shows and cable news
Was just gettin ready to say the same thing !
Phil Donahue was a commie
The saddest part about Ayn Rands legacy is that when her atlas shrugged money ran out she ended up on government benefits. What a great and disappointing contradiction. In the end she too needed her fellow man to help her survive
Well she paid taxes like everyone else. That's her money she gave up to the government going to work for her. SO WHAT ?
@@howardjunssen5595My Sentiments. At Least She Was Aware.
Ayn's point, "she doesn't go along to get along" and expects to be "free" of outside influence, welcomed or not.
What I have learned in life...when I am in the presence of someone who knows more than me, I shut up and listen.
You must be a complete mute
Rand accepting old age security from the government when she got extremely old.
Ah she got carried away here. She wouldn't have got to her current (current within the video) position if it was not for stepping into people's door steps. According to what she said, there's no point of the show. Everyone should just read her books.
Knights2theEnd
nah she said don't use her invited time up, with opposition. she came to further xplain her books. she wanted someone 'with her' to ask a question, on her dime. that's all.
Knights2theEnd dont disagree wth the cult or be put in line by it's members. The Jungle is a better book, not so many nieve characters like her books have.
Knights2theEnd. If she disagreed with Rand's book then she should've explain what exactly she disagrees with and why... but all that liberal lady did was insult her "cult" and say she had an outdated philosophy (in her own sneaky subtle way) without really explaining her reasons... which i suspect she didn't because shes emotional and couldn't pass up the opportunity of boosting her ego at rands expense "I feel my new and improved philosophy is better than yours.. i feel :-) "
Feeling don't matter. Logic matters.
The three most important human needs: hunger, logic and lust. This is why unrestrained capitalism is the best system. Survival of the fittest. If you trip and fall while running with the herd, it's your own fault. Get trampled. If someone trips you up, and you fall, just accept that fate. Get up or get trampled. Only the strong survive. The weak are there to feed the predators. When it's your time to die, don't fret, just do it. All this emotional stuff is garbage.
Her books are crap. I tried to read anthem, and it just sucked way too hard to finish.
The big mistake in your thinking, dear commenters, is that the beauty of sentience is in the combination of heart and mind. The feeling and the thinking. Compassion and reason. The interplay between our big brain and our consience. One is helpless without the other.
To demonstrate using, freely, a Steven Erikson trick of words: purely rational reasoning leads to blind selfinterest, which leads to indifference in the wellbeing of the other, which leads to inability to work collectivly when needed, which leads to stagnation of creativity in the species, leading to the end of civillisation.
Also: purely emotional action leads to loss of perspective, which leads to fear, which leads to immobility in the face of problematic situations, which leads to the stagnation of creativity in the species, leading, again, to the end of civillisation.
Both these patterns are, of course, generalisations, but are based in Rand's brand of philosophy.
Reason and emotion both are what makes us what we are. One without the other is a sure path to psychopatic behaviour.
Audience: " ... an elitist society and thats just not practical."
Me: "Well we certainly prevented that. 🙄"
😊🤣😂