Liberalism

[CuteOldGuy]

To understand the meaning and motives of egalitarianism, project it into the field of medicine. Suppose a doctor is called to help a man with a broken leg and, instead of setting it, proceeds to break the legs of ten other men, explaining that this would make the patient feel better; when all these men become crippled for life, the doctor advocates the passage of a law compelling everyone to walk on crutches—in order to make the cripples feel better and equalize the “unfairness” of nature.

If this is unspeakable, how does it acquire an aura of morality—or even the benefit of a moral doubt—when practiced in regard to man’s mind? | Ayn Rand, "Return of the Primitive," 144

[TheDaliLama]

I think my signature says it all...Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink. (P.J.O'Rourke )


Why are we typing like that Dumb Fuck Fast Cum?

[CuteOldGuy]

It's simple really,

to piss him off.

[MC]

Ayn Rand....quite the hypocrite in her final days.

[CuteOldGuy]

Does that negate the truth or logic of what she said?

[MC]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Does that negate the truth or logic of what she said?

When she goes against the very same principles she championed, then I'd say yes. It puts her entire worldview into queston if she herself was not willing to follow it. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[CuteOldGuy]

We've argued that ad nauseum in older threads. It would be boring to revisit it again. Simply then, what is wrong with the statement?

[essence]

It is very simply an argument by false analogy, and is easily dismissed by pointing out the falshood of the analogy.

[CuteOldGuy]

Ok, point it out.

[essence]

I pointed it out but somehow my longer message got lost when I hot the send button - always make a copy before you hit send!

But let me try again.

To understand the meaning and motives of egalitarianism, project it into the field of medicine. Suppose a doctor is called to help ten men with broken legs and he proceeds to set them, starting with the ones in most need of help. When all these men become fit again, they return to thank him and have a little party. They all share in the costs and treat each other as equals.

To understand the meaning and motives of egalitarianism, project it into the field of medicine. Suppose a doctor is working at a busy A&E on a Friday night. He has been on call for 36 hours, and has hardly slept during that time. He is 3 years out of med school. Waiting are the normal variety of hapless folk. A drunk man has just vomited over a nurse, a man has broken his arm in a fight, a man is holding his side where blood is oozing out, a woman has a baby who won;t stop crying, a young girl is asking for some medicine because she isn;t feeling good and may have a slight cold. Another drunk man wanders in and out and abuses whoever catches his eye. Policeman is standing around, he wants to interview a woman after the doctor has patched her up. n ambulance is arriving with the results of a sever car accident and fire. So the doctor wonders whether he should go into private practice or call for extra help from the manager who is tucked up in bed. They all expect to be treated for free, but of course nothing is free. They all contribute or not in various ways and the doctor tries to treat them professionally while keeping his thoughts to himself.

So, an of these three analogies could be used, they are all a false way of arguing.

BTW, the third description is not far from a typical London A&E on a Friday night.

[essence]

Or maybe this will demonstrate the perils of argument by analogy?

To understand the meaning and motives of egalitarianism, project it into the field of murder. Suppose a gunman sets out to kill his wife, but when he arrives at the house he founds they are having a lingerie party. So he proceeds to shoot them dead, one by one, and when the police come to arrest him he says everybody dies some time, so it is best if they all die at the same time to make them all equal, and equalize the 'unfairness' of nature.

This forum is awash with argument by false analogy, but this thread is one of the most blatant examples.

I assume COG tht you realise how ridiculous the argument is, you simply want to provoke some discussion and get others to appreciate the stupidity of the original author. Actually, maybe they are not stupid,they know exactly what they are doing, they just rely on the stupidity of their followers.

[CuteOldGuy]

The original author was a lot of things, but stupid was not one of them. You've muddied the water, but I think the point she made was a pretty accurate description of what passes for egalitarianism today. It appears to me that in today's society the focus is not on lifting people up, it's on bringing people down, so the ones at the lower level will feel better about themselves. Not because their life is any better, but because someone else has been hurt. Clearly, she was warning against that, and the analogy is valid. But I enjoyed your arguments. You didn't use multicolors, or call me a homosexual, which is generally how discussions go here.

[essence]

I gthink I backtracked on calling the original author stupid. I said they were probably very clever and well versed in using crooked thinking, knowing that most ofthe population are stupid and will fall for it every time.

I think what must be distinguished is the 'ism' and the results of poor application of that 'ism'.

The principle that 'we are all equal under the law' is surely accepted by most, but everybody knows that when you enter the courthouse there are other influences at play including the throwing of dice.

The origina author of course committed other crooked thinking sins, including changing the meaning of words and emotive language. 'Unfairness' is used in a way to emphasise those for whom life has been unfair, whereas the true meaning is that different people have different luck thrown at them, good and bad.

The author also throws in some subliminal remarks e.g. to paraphrase:

The motives of egalitarianism is to equalize the 'unfairness' of nature.

Doesn;t that sound ridiculous?

But if it said:

'Egalitarianism has become mis applied and an excuse in wrong headed minds for ill conceived attempts to level down all aspects of human endeavour'

In fact, the more I read this, the more ridiculous it becomes. How can you talk about equalizing something which is by nature, unequal? It is just as absurd to talk about equalising the unfairness of a pack of cards in a game of poker.

Yes, the author may be very clever, but also very very stupid. I think a decent jury would easily see through that in a barrister.

It's late, I am going to bed. Life is unfair. Deal with it (as I say to my kids).

[CuteOldGuy]

And good night to you as well, my friend. And thanks for not wishing me dead. That is becoming common around here these days. And I'm just here to have fun! LOL!

[essence]

ps no the analogy is not valid, if you are going to make an argument, make it on its own terms, don;t make it on the basis of some concocted story. For example, if there is evidence that education is not sufficiently encouraging the brightest, then make that argument, provide the evidence, don't talk about broken legs, ridiculous! It is just grand standing.