>rewatch Incredibles after years of not watching it
>literally just butthurt over a childish dream
Syndrome was pretty pathetic in retrospect
>>83370550
A pathetic billionaire.
>>83370550
In retrospect? How did you not absorb that the first time through, it's not exactly subtle.
>>83370550
>"When everyone's special, no one is."
What did he mean by this?
>>83370742
I wa like 8 when it came out
>>83370550
He was, but he was also right in a way.
>>83370794
The only thing preventing him from giving the world superhero technology to advance human civilization (Besides his ego) was the Incredibles basically not wanting to lose their speshul snowflake status.
For all the movies push about Objectivist ethics, it's kind of pathetic to think the moral comes out to be "Make sure not only 'you're special', but you do everything in your power to keep others down so you can maintain your status!" By the end the Incredibles have completely bypassed the laws made to protect citizens because 'muh special status' and returned to the status quo just to promote a libertarians wet dream. Meanwhile, Buddy is portrayed as horrible just because his actions would've made Superheros obsolete.
It's like a movie about a superhero named "Cancer Man" who goes around curing cancer, but has to fight a villain whose working to sell a cure because...that will make Cancer Man redundant? And oooo that's bad how dare he!
Fuck this movie.
>>83370912
No one would call themselves "Cancer Man".
>>83370963
What if their superpower is Cancer?
"Chemo Man" just doesn't have the same ring.
>>83370794
Ayn Rand was right.
>>83370912
>Buddy is portrayed as horrible just because his actions would've made Superheros obsolete.
Not exactly, they use his methods to discredit his ideas, his ideas themselves aren't exactly proven wrong.
Remember that one key point of objectivism is that non-gifted people will try to drag down gifted people out of jealousy, preventing them from making the world a better place.
>>83370989
But the one representing her was the supervillain in this movie.
Does that mean the villain was write and the heroes were wrong?
>>83370989
Ayn Rand would say that Syndrome could do anything he wanted with his technology: he invented it. Whether that's giving it to everyone, selling it at a price of his choosing, or just keeping it to himself.
>>83370550
It's a villain with a vendetta.
Most vendettas come from butt hurt of some kind.
> You hurt my feelings!
> You killed my master/loved one(s)/father!
> You did petty bribery to get suchandsuch and that was a minor inconvenience to me for a day or two!
...Most butt hurt doesn't make sense, but yeah
>>83371041
>Remember that one key point of objectivism is that non-gifted people will try to drag down gifted people out of jealousy, preventing them from making the world a better place
Okay now that's a stupidly if fair point, but doesn't reality, and this movie, point to the opposite? "Gifted people" (Like Bob and his family) try to tear down Buddy (despite what him doing and his ideas are good, even if his methods are discredited) and people like him. The message comes out that if you're Extra special, it's okay to stomp down on non-specials so long as it preserves your status.
It's similar to Korra/Amon, where the Benders never actually tackle Amon's arguments about how Benders will suppress and push down others after dismantling his movement.
>>83371049
The good guys represented her ideology, not Syndrome.
>>83371050
Hey, the movie is clumsy as fuck, don't blame me. Since Syndrome's gift is artificial, he's not a true gifted person (at least that's how I took it), and him wanting to share it with non-special people, specifically to destroy the specialness of supers, also makes him not a Randian character.
>>83371154
>he's not a true gifted person
I have a theory that is actually did have the super power of super intelligence. But because he couldn't lift trains or shoot ice from his fingers, he didn't realize it.
It makes sense if you think about it.
>>83371154
Syndrome represents her ideology a lot better than they do.
>Inventor, Innovator
>Acts in his own self-interest
>Businessman who makes billions with gadgets
>Only wants to sell them for petty reasons, turn a profit
>Bring onboards Supers to test his machines who agreed to it anyway
The Superheros who act outside the law and act for altruism can be situated clearly against him.
>>83371128
>Gifted people" (Like Bob and his family) try to tear down Buddy (despite what him doing and his ideas are good, even if his methods are discredited) and people like him.
Yes and no. The whole plot is Syndrome literally killing gifted people out of jealousy, and then antagonizing Bob and his family.
They'd have had no incentive to tear him down if his own plan wasn't to tear down supers in various way.
>The message comes out that if you're Extra special, it's okay to stomp down on non-specials so long as it preserves your status.
Yes, that's perfectly Randian.
>It's similar to Korra/Amon, where the Benders never actually tackle Amon's arguments about how Benders will suppress and push down others after dismantling his movement.
Well sort of but using Bryke when discussing writing is not really exemplary.
>>83371154
Doesn't Randian philosophy to say to do anything you want with your life, for your own interest and happiness? (Even if it's something stupid like revenge or spite, ect)
How is Syndrome acting against his Self-Interest and making himself not a Randian character?
>>83371154
He's a genius, billionaire, inventor businessman; he's exactly the kind of character Rand would have written. The thing that people don't grasp is that if you subscribe to the Objectivist interpretation of the film it's about a conflict between people who exhibit the traits of Rand's protagonists.
>>83371276
>They'd have had no incentive to tear him down if his own plan wasn't to tear down supers in various way.
If we follow Randian logic to the letter and apply it to the Incredibles, they didn't really have any incentive to tear him down anyway! Past survival that is. What motive would they have?
Their actions only make sense if Syndrome is identified with Rand's ethics, as the Parrs don't seem to follow it through.
>>83371317
It's kind of like HxH, where every single main character, protagonist or antagonists are all sociopaths and fall right at home with Objectivist aesthetics.
>>83371317
I don't get why people think that they can reconcile Objectivist ideals with Superheros. Rorschach, the best obvious example of one just demonstrates how well their ethos DON'T mix together.
>>83370550
He's the same as most adults, to be completely honest. And he was given the power and opportunity to take his childhood revenge, which is sadly something a lot of adults would jump at the chance to do. It's a pretty poignant and honest character, and you don't see much of that.
Another example like this that I like is Charles Xavier: One of his most notable enemies is his step brother Cain Marko(we can ignore the obvious symbol of his name). Charles left the abusive, ugly home his mother married into and created a life of his own where he was one of the most important and powerful people of his time. But he could never use his influence to overcome his bully brother. The good deeds he had, the amazing telepathy that let him persuade anyone to do anything, but he still lived in Cain's shadow even though he was a thug who just used brute strength at all times.
>>83371239
Sure but that's not how the movie presents it. The movie presents him as someone who merely apes greatness.
>>83371264
That would work if you completely forget his motivation being that "When everyone's special, no one is.", aswell as the part of his plan that includes fucking up other gifted people off their pedestal.
A core trait of objectivism is that there's a natural difference between gifted and non-gifted people and that trying to close that gap for others (which Syndrome does) is a waste of time and energy on the part of the gifted person.
Syndrome's actions clearly have a negative effect on gifted people in that world.
>Bring onboards Supers to test his machines who agreed to it anyway
Wait what? Rashomon.jpg
Both positions can be argued to be objectivist, I guess, but I would put that down more to bad writing than intention.
>>83371285
>or your own interest and happiness
>How is Syndrome acting against his Self-Interest and making himself not a Randian character?
Didn't you just answer you question?
>>83370550
autism speaks
>>83371317
>if you subscribe to the Objectivist interpretation of the film it's about a conflict between people who exhibit the traits of Rand's protagonists.
Oh definitely, it's just that in that interpretation, Syndrome is still the bad guy because he wants to destroy the specialness of supers to make non-supers (which happens to include himself) feel better.
He's explicitely destroying specialness to make the non-special feel special.
I'm fairly certain Rand wouldn't have approved.
>>83371433
>his motivation being that "When everyone's special, no one is."
Wouldn't that argument only follow through if he was doing it for good reasons? He wasn't an altruist trying to enlighten the wold or help anyone but himself, and at the end of the day his only motive was Profit and Spite, his self-motivation was self-interest.
I mean I see what you mean because Buddy's a mixed bag. He wanted to knock down Specials but because one snubbed him, not because he cared about normies. His showing over Mirage showed how little he cared for human life and anyone but himself.
I think if there was a better route to spite supers other than just giving everyone superpowers, he definitely would've done that instead.
>>83371433
why is it every time this comes up every idiot who's just discovered philosophy thinks Syndrome is in any way remotely interested in handing out super powers at all?
He's a blunt and obvious villain who has no interest in sharing his wealth, intelligence, or technology. He jealously murders superheroes so he can build a giant robot that he can then defeat in a play show and create a new age of superheroics where he gets to be the star.
he was never going to help anyone, if he ever did sell his technology it would be to the highest bidder creating a super powered wealthy elite.
So yeah I guess he was a Randian character. A selfish prick who rejects traditional moral ideas like charity, the public good, and a stable society in favor of his own self interest.
>>83371376
Rorschach is also repeatedly shown to be self-deluding and hypocritical. I think that the Objectivist ethos work fine on an intimate level, but start breaking down as one expands the scope of the story. You wouldn't have had much issue doing an Objectivist hero in the Golden Age. I think it also might depend on how one personally interprets the concept of altruism as it applies to superheroes or if one believes that a superhero's are transactional on a societal scale.
>>83371324
>Past survival that is
Considering the guy didn't show any intention of stopping attacking them ever, that seems to be enough motivation.
>>83371508
While I agree with that, I just find it ironic because he's following her philosophy to a letter except the parts he indirectly contradicts.
It's like the entire concept of "Self-Interest" and motivation is so narrowly, rigidly defined in the Objectivist ethos that anything that isn't a direct contribution invalidates itself. Truly a philosophy of extremes.
Which is lame because she STILL preaches some petty safeguards like things about corruption and fraud, or not using brute force.
>>83371523
>Wouldn't that argument only follow through if he was doing it for good reasons?
No?
Evil non-specials in Rand do that shit out of jealousy, exactly like he does.
What you think people who act against Rand could have good intentions? Get the fuck out of here! Don't you know taxes are theft and leftists are just jealous of richer people (and in no way vote left because they care about others)?
>>83371538
Basically, yeah.
Which is why the argument "Was he right?" carrys that much more weight. He was an objectivist prick that, despite his douche baggary could've still done more good then Bob ever did, just by being selfish and evil. It's a dialect of moral consequences that really trips people up.
>>83371547
He only ever attacked them when they showed up or confronted him. Outside of that he wasn't really all that concerned with killing them, it seemed like he was too focused on his plan mostly.
>>83370550
>buddy denied being Mr. incredible's sidekick
>becomes a billionaire while bob struggles with his marriage and normal life
>implying sending him a letter explaining his success wouldn't have been the perfect revenge
>>83371546
I think the only way you can have any concept of Supers coincide with Objectivist ethos is if you basically make them glorified Mercenaries or some kind of For-profit contracted Hero.
There's no way to explain the discrepancy of why Superman would go around saving people altruistically who can offer him nothing back, rather than use his powers selfishly.
>>83371538
His endgame is to destroys gifted people and their status, yes for his own self-interest because objectivists don't believe altruism *exists*, they think it's just an excuse made by petty jealous people to rob them of their specialness.
The end message of the movie is that the only reason you'd want to suppress the specialness of supers is petty jealousy, not for any of the claimed altruistic goals. Syndrome's portrayal as a douchebag is a way to portray the commoner as a douchebag.
>>83371591
Well it's just you said his motivation in greentext was the carryaway of his line,
>"When everyone's special, no one is."
When I think that was just the result. He obviously just wanted to glorify himself, and the way he'd go about it or bust also resonates with some of the so called "Protagonist" (And I say that very lightly, since they'd come off as villains in any other novel) of Rand's novels.
For instance, wasn't there some Randian 'hero' in her books that burned down their own oil field, oil that could've been sold, used and helpful to people just because they could've lost the profits off it? That's like a Syndrome tantrum to me.
>>83371508
Except he is special as per his inventions and wildly successful business and especially in the context of the Parr's lives both before and after. He's explicitly destroying specialness because he was slighted and feels threatened by the existence of other special people, as they are competition. You have to remember that Syndrome is three superheroic archetypes: the billionaire hero, the action scientist, and the gadgeteer. He's just as special as the Parrs, but wants them dead so that he can be the only special person in the world. Even him offering his technology for sale when, as he put it, "he's old and had his fun," exists to further place himself on an unreachable pedestal to the non-special: he's the guy who gets to change the world irrevocably.
>>83371567
You know, for something called "objectivism", it's ironic how little self-awareness this ideology has.
Or I guess it makes complete sense.
>>83371677
>made by petty jealous people to rob them of their specialness
You mean like Wyatt Oil who bombed her own fields in Randian books just so the Workers on strike couldn't feel 'special'?
>>83370550
>get told he cant become a superhero
>works his hardest to be one(or at least on equal footing)
>hurrr he was butthurt lololol
I bet you're one of these
>>83371633
He literally got Bob to come to his island under false pretenses and tried to kill him.
And then he had him captured.
>>83371611
I don't really see a super powered elite who can use technology to force the masses at gun point to do whatever they want as a good thing. He was an engineer who could figure out stuff like forcefields that could lift things and fight suits and crap. I don't think a lot of that would trickle down to the common man.
Randian morality completely breaks down when examined in an objective light. There's "Special" people and "Not Special" people. This in and of itself is an utterly self serving statement. Rand clearly thought of herself as special. Except she wasn't, she wrote books and got them published and espoused a selfish ideology. Whoop de Do.
How many people are actually 'special?' Well you've got fringe cases like say, Stephen Hawking whose grasp of high concepts has helped redefine our understanding of the universe. So he's special right?
Kind of? He's special because he has a higher capacity for intellectual thought than most other human beings. Without institutions in which to be educated he's a slightly more clever peasant, well until that disease kicks in and leaves him a vegetable.
How about Olympic Athletes? Are they special? To a degree, they have the luck to inherit bodies that can be developed to a certain peak physical potential, and again they rely on institutions that help them develop their potential into a useful trait. (nevermind the use of athletes to society is debatable but this isn't the place for a critique on social idolatry)
Bluntly speaking there are no 'Special' people who can just walk up to the table, slap their dick on it and demand that they be recognized. Everyone starts out the same useless mass of flesh and tissue and needs help developing physically, mentally, and emotionally.
Some people have more potential than others but humans as a group need oh say...janitors to fucking clean up messes. Mechanics to fix machines. People need a sane, safe, and healthy society to thrive in. Being 'special' isn't enough.
>>83371677
>Syndrome's portrayal as a douchebag is a way to portray the commoner as a douchebag.
How?
Syndrome is clearly gifted, he's not a commoner by any means. Bob comes off the Normie with a family and all that.
The analogy just falls flat when the supposed normie representative can build super doomweapons and billion dollar islands.
>>83371738
This.
>>83370912
>was the Incredibles basically not wanting to lose their speshul snowflake status.
Or yknow, the fact that he attacked a location thick with civilians and lost control of a robot and then proceeded to threaten their child. Nobody seemed inherently against his tech except the ones he's using to harm others. Powered or not, Syndrome is a murderer and needed to be put away. However his fixation on capes and heroes is what ultimately led to his downfall.
>>83371677
Syndrome isn't a commoner, he's rich as hell and has an island, super intelligence, and giant robots. It's people with inherent physical gifts versus a super genius who could help the world with his inventions but chooses instead to squander his talent on nursing a childhood grudge.
The irony is he was super all along, he just had to build his jetpack before he could fly.
>>83371729
That's what he says, but he's lying because he's a petty jealous douche, all people who pretend they're altruistic are petty assholes who just wish they were special. That's the point.
>>83371729
>For instance, wasn't there some Randian 'hero' in her books that burned down their own oil field, oil that could've been sold, used and helpful to people just because they could've lost the profits off it? That's like a Syndrome tantrum to me.
>>83371765
Yes but in this case it's to attack people who, by Randian standards, aren't special.
>>83371667
Do you even Booster Gold?
Anyway, like I said, if the superhero considers his actions as transactional on a societal level then it can work, as he receives benefit from a safer and more orderly society.
>>83371757
I don't think Ayn Rand had that much Self-Awareness, but if you take Objectivism at face value it's actually a pretty cool philosophy. Or atleast, like one a supervillain might use conveniently.
The safeguards and moral preaching are actually what undermine it so thoroughly, because no one truly 'self-interested' is going to stop and think whether their actions are considered fraud or 'corrupt', which is where all the self-awareness ends.
If one wanted to take Objectivism it to it's logical limit, they could even twist the logic around Kantian style and say that a crazy genocidal Ozymandias stunt is validated by 'self-interest' so long as your interests were humanities future.
But most randoids refute this by capping a limit on the terms of 'value' and 'exchange', 99% of the time referring exclusively to services and profits. If you remove that limit, it basically becomes light-core Aristotle or hard-core Nietzsche.
>>83370550
he's kinda cute in the dorky kind of way
>>83371841
Rand's Morality kind of breaks down when you remember that you need workers to till the fields, keep the machines running, clean up the messes etc.
For all the time she spends espousing how awesome 'special' people are she seems to forget that someone has to keep the wheels turning. All that 'specialness' will really help you when you run out of workers to mine coal for the powerplants or to process the wheat into bread.
>>83371738
>>83371791
His specialness is fake specialness, he uses machines to reproduce feats that special people can do naturally.
Kind of how having google doesn't make you a trivia genius.
Either way I'll say it again, Syndrome is portrayed as a hypocrite, of course he doesn't actually want everyone to have the same things as he does, and of course he doesn't realize he could have been "one of them" because he's blinded by his jealousy for their social status.
>>83371772
there's kind of this intro to the movie where a young Syndrome nearly gets killed by a supervillain because he won't calm the fuck down and let Bob do his job as a superhero, and you know when Mr. Incredible loses his temper and tells him to go home and be a normal kid he has a big tantrum.
He was literally butthurt.
It's spelled out in neon lighting.
>>83370550
...Can't agree. He would have been evil regardless. This is just the form his assholery took.
>>83371941
the ability to fly is the ability to fly broham. Making a functional jetpack is pretty special.
>>83371786
>There's "Special" people and "Not Special" people. This in and of itself is an utterly self serving statement. Rand clearly thought of herself as special.
That's pretty much a requirement for any objectivist. Just look at Zack Snyder and his obsession with a world that wants to destroy Superman, aswell as the persistent idea that his movies are just too smart for the masses.
>>83371774
>I don't really see a super powered elite who can use technology to force the masses at gun point to do whatever they want as a good thing
He's not exactly a rule-the-world type villain, Buddy isn't interested in tyranny. Even if his intentions were bad, if there's the slightest chance he cared to share his tech, even for the wrong reasons, the end result would end up muddying into 'justifying the means.'
> I don't think a lot of that would trickle down to the common man.
Which muddys it further.
I mean, didn't he basically discover free energy?
It's the sort of dilemma where you weight nuclear bombs against nuclear power plants. On one hand, evil megalomaniac prick, on the other hand, chance to feed the world and give tech that could cure cancer, feed countries, save billions.
>Randian morality completely breaks down when examined in an objective light.
I know what you mean, but I also refine 'objective light' as 'objective reality'.
In our world yeah no one deserves those kind of privileges or to be that self-interested, and it doesn't hold that it'd do any good to the world.
In a fictional setting where we have people with Superheros and 200+ IQs and far greater capability then us? Doesn't it make more sense that traditional morality would be difficult to apply to them when we have that sort of extreme situation?
Like the entire idea of
>There's "Special" people and "Not Special" people.
In reality is a false dichotomy. Even Bill Gates, Hawking, Athletes ect can just be mugged on the streets or sued, ect. The entire ideological field changes when you get into people with enhanced bodies and brains beyond superhuman.
>>83371958
And he used the butthurt to become on equal levels with those who mocked him but noooooo lol he's butthurt hahahaha
Go be fat somewhere else
>>83371812
One is naturally gifted, the other arguably isn't and has to rely on work and depending on society (for Syndrome through education and probably grants or sponsors). There is definitely a difference in their specialness.
But yes, the irony is there too.
>>83371841
To give a shot in the dark at that, his mission wasn't explicitly to kill people. Just to stage a fight, with some people maybe getting hurt in the collateral. The same could be argued for Wyatt's Oil Fields.
>>83371941
This is a pretty thin hair to split. It's like saying someone like Batman isn't "Special" just because he wasn't "Born with it" like Superman.
>>83370550
That's partially what makes him a good villain. He's not Dr. Doom but he's petty for sure.
>>83371941
>he uses machines to reproduce feats that special people can do naturally.
If they're so special then why didn't they build a giant robot?
>>83371982
>obsession with a world that wants to destroy Superman
Only one guy in the movie wanted to destroy Superman and half the issues Clark was having was his discomfort at the adulation he received.
>>83371978
So supers literally exist irl?
>>83371928
I think she tries to give some convoluted spiel in one of her books how emphasized genius is, and clearly someone can build factories or plan farms, is worth far far far more in their intellectual labor than a thousand workers doing physical grunt work.
This ignoring the fact, that the level of business she promotes doesn't do nearly that much intellectual labor, they just know a specialized set of skills/knowledge not trained or taught to anyone else.
Anyone out of a standard University could do it. Any STEM grunt or Accountant could honestly make the same cold, calculating and shitfaced decisions to keep the $$$ running. It's so shitfaced, that it's all done with computers now, and that's why even Movies and Hollywood is so terrible, they've got it down to a formula.
>>83372007
>The entire ideological field changes when you get into people with enhanced bodies and brains beyond superhuman.
Mr. Incredible fought a bomb tossing mime.
>>83371958
>when Mr. Incredible loses his temper and tells him to go home and be a normal kid he has a big tantrum.
Isn't that kind of ironic, considering Bob was doing that basically the entire movie?
>>83372093
>To give a shot in the dark at that, his mission wasn't explicitly to kill people. Just to stage a fight, with some people maybe getting hurt in the collateral. The same could be argued for Wyatt's Oil Fields.
You forget all the supers he killed before that.
>This is a pretty thin hair to split. It's like saying someone like Batman isn't "Special" just because he wasn't "Born with it" like Superman.
It would be thin if it wasn't an important plot point that Syndrome himself thinks he's non-special.
>>83372061
>through education and probably grants or sponsors
What fluff are you smoking? There's no amount of education or 'grants' that can teach you how to build hyper-advanced gadgets or doomsday devices.
>>83372007
>He's not exactly a rule-the-world type villain,
It's not Buddy I'm concerned with, it's the kind of people who can pay the prices he'd ask for a suit that lets you kill people like Mr. Incredible. He doesn't have to rule the world he can live in his island fortress and some trustfund baby can use his super suit to kill a few dozen people in a low income neighborhood because he knows he can get away with it. And maybe that's a bit out of left field but considering buddy's stunt with that giant robot and how it got out of control I feel it's appropriate.
>In a fictional setting where we have people with Superheros and 200+ IQs
A: IQ tests have nothing to do with real intelligence, it's just a convienant way to measure people and try to find a benchmark. A 200 IQ doesn't mean much because there's literally thousands of IQ tests out there and scoring 25 in one might be equivalent to scoring 100 in another.
B: I don't really take issue with your Tony Starks or Reed Richards types changing the world but that's science fiction not super heroics so that doesn't get written most of the time. I mean yeah traditional morality goes out the window when you get real mind readers, people who are born with the ability to shrug off bullets and so on but Objectivism is very anti-society. I'd be willing to accept a technocrat who kept me fed, clothed, and housed in exchange for a crappy job while he used his tech to fix the world and give us an interstellar empire but I don't see that happening any time soon.
>In reality is a false dichotomy.
Kinda yeah, but now we're getting into a Haves and Haves Not argument.
>>83370550
Evil is pathetic anon, that's the point. Evil is jealous and spiteful and petty and lacks self-awareness.
>>83371050
Yeah but not hurt anyone or violate their rights. Why the fuck does everyone open their mouth about Rand and leave that part out? Every fucking time.
What part of "other people have rights too, don't violate them" didn't people get in Objectivism because that was the whole fucking point.
>>83371376
Rorschach demonstrates how well Objectivism went over Alan Moore's head. Dr.Manhattan was more of an Objectivist and represented rational selfishness until he killed Rorschach. In a way the Objectivist title could be split between the two. Each gets a bit right and gets a bit wrong.
>>83371508
No Rand would have approved because that's the whole point.
People are petty, jealous fucks and any time anyone does better than them they try to tear them down to feel better. They build whole political systems based on this idea.
I can't participate in these threads because as an Objectivist for over a decade it boils my blood how fucking WRONG people are about Rand. They can't even get basic facts straight.
It's like me going
>Jesus Christ said to stick pickles up your ass and stare at the Sun until your eyes bleed out
And a whole thread of people accept this as fact. When you're fucking off it's hilariously embarrassing if you knew. It's about as embarassing for you as Jesus' anal pickes would be. You guys get it THAT WRONG.
>>83372184
I'm pretty sure that was intentional yeah. But buddy nearly got himself killed. Bob wasn't even angry that the kid wanted to be a sidekick it was that he was too young and wouldn't slow down and accept some training.
What kind of name is Syndrome anyway?
>>83372220
I know he murdered people, but I'm saying that wasn't the intention. He probably got some satisfaction out of it, but his end-game goal was just to build his stupid robot. If one wanted to use extremely twisted objectivist/late-capitalist logic, he was just 'engineering' and creating a product, and those were acceptable losses (Considered mere incidentals deaths in the same way victims in a factory might be).
>Syndrome himself thinks he's non-special
That's just his own delusion and ego speaking. He thinks he's not "Special enough", which is weird because there's an entire pseudo-objectivist theme applying to the Incredible not to be humble but to embrace specialness, but the same logic the Heroes follow also ends up creating the motivations and rules for the Villain to be vilify with.
>>83372125
>If they're so special then why didn't they build a giant robot?
As the movie shows, they don't need one. Because they're special.
>Only one guy in the movie wanted to destroy Superman
What? Literally 3 guys in the 2nd movie alone try to kill Superman. The entire reason both movies happen is because some guy wants to fuck with Supes.
>half the issues Clark was having was his discomfort at the adulation he received.
That actually doesn't cause any issues compared to people who hate him, it just makes him frown because reasons.
>>83372223
no but you kind of need money to fund those first prototypes. DARPA is a thing. You should see some of the shit the US military prototyped.
>>83371128
>It's similar to Korra/Amon, where the Benders never actually tackle Amon's arguments about how Benders will suppress and push down others after dismantling his movement.
It's not like Amon tried to be diplomatic and no one negotiates with terrorists.
No wait Korra actually TRIES to do that and in the end it was nothing but a trap.
>>83372223
That's not what I implied, but you need to learn basic maths before building jetpacks, and you need money to build shit in the 1st place. Syndrome wasn't born rich.
>>83371879
>because no one truly 'self-interested' is going to stop and think whether their actions are considered fraud or 'corrupt', which is where all the self-awareness ends.
I do this every fucking day of my life. Every day. My very existence proves you wrong.
Again you do not understand RATIONAL self-interest. DONT FUCKING KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT MEANS YOULL GET KILLED TOO. It's that goddamn simple. It's not "do whatever you want" or "deliberately fuck other people over" or whatever shit you guys seem to get out of this and make up as you go along because you lack the imagination to think of words like "selfish" as being good because you've been conditioned by society that much.
Again, Jesus said stick pickles up your ass.
>>83371433
>his motivation being that "When everyone's special, no one is."
That isn't his motivation though.
His plan goes as such.
1) Get rid of super heroes
2) Present threat that is so powerful only superheroes could stop it, and as strong as possible so he doesn't need to take out literally every hero before he can unleash it
3) Present himself as a great hero by defeating this threat, dwarfing all other heroes, becoming the top dog of the top dogs
4) Keep doing this shit until he's old and can't be bothered anymore
5) Sell his shit then, get even richer and rest in the knowledge that soon, when he dies of old age, no one is going to be left in the world who is as special as he was
>>83372260
>No Rand would have approved because that's the whole point.
>People are petty, jealous fucks and any time anyone does better than them they try to tear them down to feel better. They build whole political systems based on this idea.
I think you misunderstood me, I don't mean she wouldn't approve of a villain being protrayed like that, I mean she wouldn't approve of his actions as being morally right.
>objectivism is actually smart, people just don't get it
Oh boy, here we go.
>>83372232
I see what your saying, it's really hard to say though because we don't know enough about Buddy's history and motives, other than that they weren't very good. It's possible he might only care about profit and would never stoop to giving tech or goodies to any Government, or only use them to fund terrorist. Or there might be a very very negligible scenario where he's of some benefit to the world unintentionally, like Lex Luthor might be, if maniacal.
The traditional Objectivist argument would be that it's irrelevant whether it does good or not, just that he wanted it and gets to have his way and getting your way is what's fair, no matter who it hurts or helps. Which is, the mindset of a selfish brat, but that's objectivism.
>A
Besides the point. I don't care about IQs, I mean if you have people that can build something like cybernetics or Iron-Man level tech, you've got someone who can change the world single-handedly, and affect billions of people in the process.
The Objectivist question would be "Is it right or is it wrong to let them?"
Actually no, that'd be a more nietzschen conception. Objectivism would be more like "Why is it right to hold them accountable when it's in their self-interest? Who are you to say they cannot, yata yata"
>B
Yeah, that's one of the weird things about fiction. It's interesting to see hallmarks of a philosophy put into action, but then you have to ask yourself is it a world you'd want to live in, and unless you have superpowers or are a 'main character', it's usually not. But from the outside, you wouldn't want those Ethos taken away because if it were handled more realistically rather than Objectively, you'd see all the elements that make the fiction so interesting.
>I'd be willing to accept a technocrat
Would you accept it, and an extremely high standards of easy living, at the price of having super-terrorists and villains who could blow up bridges with their minds or being killed in a football stadium?
>>83372260
>but not hurt anyone or violate their rights
Violate their PROPERTY rights.
That's an important distinction in Objectivism.
Things like Human rights are honestly way out of Rands fucking radar, and it's fine hurting people if it's in self-interest. (Rand supported the Colonial projects, the slaughter of Indians, even the bombing of Palestine and Arabs just because the westerners and Jews seemed more 'civilized' in protecting their interest)
>>83372478
>Would you accept it, and an extremely high standards of easy living, at the price of having super-terrorists and villains who could blow up bridges with their minds or being killed in a football stadium?
Well I'd accept it because the last part would be outside of my control in this hypothetical scenario where superpowers exist. One would imagine, or hope at least, in a world with ironman armors, Cosmic Powers generators, and FTL spaceflight that the government would have super police who could protect you but maybe they wouldn't and if they couldn't what would my alternative be other then getting through my day and hoping for the best? Presumably the technocrat in this scenario would offer me protection so I go live in his flying pyramid fortress and clean his floors and use my VR booth to forget what a worthless little prole I am.
Maybe die when a superhero attacks his fortress and it falls into the ocean.
>>83372260
>as an Objectivist for over a decade it boils my blood how fucking WRONG people are about Rand. They can't even get basic facts straight.
OOoo.
First off, I've met your kind, okay I don't want to say 'your kind' but, with every Objectist I've ever heard from
>They can't even get basic facts straight
Seems to be the most common gripe, a near autistic obsession with rigid facts and 'logic' of her system. And why wouldn't it? Objectivism is one of the most systematic philosophies to exist, it seems to appeal to people that think very systematically.
Secondly it's hard to get all the facts right because throughout her life Rand herself contradicted herself and her ideal system constantly.
>Jesus Christ said to stick pickles up your ass and stare at the Sun until your eyes bleed out
Well I mean he did say he came by the Sword, not to make peace.
>>83372289
>that wasn't the intention
If that wasn't the intention why the fuck didn't he stop? Or tell the robot to use non-lethal force? Or not blow up a civilian plane with a smile on his face?
>>83372364
Wow calm down and breath.
And I know this is hard for an objectivist to understand, since it doesn't account for it but,
> My very existence proves you wrong.
Do you understand the ridiculousness of this statement? That one person saying this, somehow means it applies to the world and entire groups of people?
You are aware that people are different, their opinions and thinking and intellect and morality is different and there's nothing 'objective' about it, or any standard to it. Someone like you, who may think they're acting fraud-lessly or incorruptible, may not share that opinion with your neighbor, client or whoever.
And nor will that be shared with someone like Alan Greenspan or the Rocker-fellers.
Also, chill out,
>"do whatever you want" or "deliberately fuck other people over"
I know that.
And that's why Objectivism sucks. It has the undertones of an Übermensch but shoots itself in the foot by having the balls to go "But not TOO morally bankrupt now."
How are you going to measure a standard of morality to judge what being a 'good' person is, without looking outside of yourself, and thinking only in relation to you?
>>83372561
The thing is security is not entirely up to tech, a lot of it is up to funding and laws.
I work as a security guard, and we're the basic security at tons of large events. For instance I was working at a private aviation convention last week and the main security for entrance was a different colored wristbands and laminated paper badges. Literally anyone can fake that. Of course there could be tighter, technology assisted security, but that costs money, and the risk/reward here is not considered good enough to care.
There was a part of the convention where people had to open their bags to access (where the actual jet planes were) but they didn't have to open their coats and we're not legally allowed to perform body searches.
Of course nothing happened, but it would have been pretty easy for someone to bomb the place, like most public gatherings.
All that to say that how much money you put into security is what matters, more than the level of tech the best security that exists is at.
>>83372621
Because murdering people was more convenient than not murdering people, so he wouldn't have wanted to slow down his plans.
He's not some murderer for kicks, he's just an asshole who doesn't see anything wrong with doing it to accomplish his goals.
>>83372672
>How are you going to measure a standard of morality to judge what being a 'good' person is
Not them, but by reading Rand. She outlines this in her Novels in pretty clear terms, it's as black and white as it gets. But being good to yourself is far more important than what definition of good other people have or define you as.
>>83370989
No she wasn't.
Shedidn't go far enough.
How did syndrome never realise he was a super, and his power was being super smart?
He built rocket shoes as a CHILD!
>>83372687
>The thing is security is not entirely up to tech,
Well no it isn't you take away guns and people will use knives to kill each other. The first recorded school 'shooting' involved a bomb maker at a college who was in his forties and one day decided to blow up a bunch of his peers for some unfathomable reason. You ever watch Fringe? Not exactly a quality show, the best episodes are filler but it does manage to present an interesting scenario with super science being used for terror attacks at time and the thing is, if having super science used by crazies to blow up cities was the price to having shit like the cure to cancer lying around pharmacy shelves? Hell yeah I'd pay it. When I was 16 I was nearly killed by some asshole driving an SUV when I was on my bike, light was red, guy sped through and I cam within inches of getting hit. Every day I go outside I risk dying. Not by much, but it's there. Especially since I have to drive my bike on a highway, drunk drivers were bad enough now I have to deal with drivers who fucking text on their phones. So yeah give me my arc reactors powering cities and cures for cancer and I'll take my alien invasions and hulk rampages. I might die but that's not new, the manner of death is new but not the risk.
>>83372713
He is still a murderer.
That's like making the same excuse for someone who kills for money, because "murder wasn't the prime goal."
>>83372737
I honestly wish Rand wouldn't have put those clauses about morality in her books. Her philosophy was on the path to Promoting LaVeyan Satanism but still trys to take the high route.
Ironically, that branch of Satanism was influenced by the ideas and writings of Nietzsche and Rand themselves.
>>83372824
I always find this shit bizarre. Am I weird, did everyone else with a religion get personally taken aside by their gods and told "Yo homie, rape is bad and stuff" is it weird to respect the rights of other human beings without a fictitious punishment realm waiting for you if you fuck up?
>>83372800
>That's like making the same excuse for someone who kills for money, because "murder wasn't the prime goal."
But that's literally capitalism.
You're living in a world where rich as fuck people are profiting off human life and suffering as we speak with death as an acceptable toll, with the excuse "murder wasn't the prime goal."
I'm not even talking about some sob-Marxist scry or anything. Holy shit, did people think that the European Refugee crisis just happened overnight? Or that Mexicans aren't hopping abroad because we fund and prop up Druglords to secure our profits?
Anyway this is a dumb analogy because it's comparing an entire economic system to a lone character. But people were comparing Syndrone to an Objectivist, and that has massive implications when put side by side with Capitalism.
I'm just saying, in an Objective world Buddy would be completely justified in all that horseshit he did. Of course he's still a murderer, and it's wrong and evil but, I'm saying going along the line of logic suited to the philosophical ideas debated in this thread, that's the sort of excuse leveraged. That's why the question comes up "Is he right?"
Only if you believe Objectivism has any merit and he's the star of it.
>>83371071
>You took down my twin towers
>>83372848
No, no it's not weird. Some basic empathy, very basic is biological and pre-programmed in. But evolution can only go so far, and eventually ones own choices and moral conceits outweigh culture/biology by far.
You're not weird. Nature and Nurture bow to human agency eventually. It simply means you have a conscience. Nourish it well, those things are fragile.
>>83372768
>if having super science used by crazies to blow up cities was the price to having shit like the cure to cancer lying around pharmacy shelves? Hell yeah I'd pay it.
Not to sound like an edgy asshole or a malthusian but I don't really think curing all cancers would be all that it's cracked up to be. Cancer is the largest killer in the west and it mostly affects old people. If you cure it life expectancy would skyrocket and I don't think the economics could follow, unless you make people work well into their 70s (when many people have already started to break down physically and mentally) and/or import even more young foreigners in the workforce (which doesn't seem like something most people want right now).
And yeah there's the aspect that longer life expectancy -> more population.
That's also part of why I think "this genius is such a genius that he cured cancer!" is a pretty dumb sci-fi trope.
>>83372911
honestly mine is kind of damaged. I'm working on maintaining it but it's hard.
I just find that position odd. I mean if religion helps you be a good person great, but you're kind of an awful person if you need the threat of eternal hellfire to keep you from being a thief, murderer and rapist and so on.
>>83372915
yeah well 'Cancer' isn't one disease anyway. It's millions, possibly trillions of mutations that occur when our cells stop suiciding like they're supposed to when they get too fucked up. If we could cure it, the entire phenomena, we'd have such an incredible mastery over human biology we could probably force people into some form of indentured servitude in exchange for returning their youth to them.
I mean you're not wrong, people living too fucking long and not giving back to society is a serious issue. One of the nastier consequences of advancing medical technology is overpopulation from people surviving shit that usually killed them.
but 'cured cancer' is an easy thing to toss out. "world hunger solved" has a similar issue. Feel free to exchange both for 'functional space stations with earth to space immigration policies"
Why are we discussing meme ideologies?
>>83372923
I think Aristotle made that point back then.
>>83372923
>but you're kind of an awful person if you need the threat of eternal hellfire to keep you from being a thief, murderer and rapist and so on.
In my opinion, not really. Most people need that sort of thing. Look at it this way, you're born in the last 20th century and probably western, educated, and raised in a society that allows some basic 'common sense' morality. This morality wasn't so common a few hundred years ago. Human Rights didn't even exist one century past. Can you really say you would've grown up to be as good a person in another era?
Well, what I'm saying is for savages living in the desert who were dumb enough to like, worship cows and rape their daughers, or cut off boys penises and stuff, yeah they needed those threats.
Oh! But if you still need that sort of threat today and are STILL a horrible person regardless, well you're just a huge piece of shit. That's my de facto scourge against being religious today. If religious people acted good or followed their holy books at all maybe I'd say good for you great. But it really doesn't, so I'm not into anything that cannot even promise a priest won't rape a kid or whatever peeps are selling, right?
>tips fedora
This is way off topic, sorry to anyone else.
>>83372915
I don't think you quite understand. Cancer itself as it exist, is just a dumb illness like others.
Curing cancer is a remarkable breakthrough. If you cure cancer, you literally cure a part of the human condition. Human immortality is only a step away from that.
>>83372409
>I think you misunderstood me, I don't mean she wouldn't approve of a villain being protrayed like that, I mean she wouldn't approve of his actions as being morally right.
>>objectivism is actually smart, people just don't get it
>Oh boy, here we go.
Well when you have thread after thread of people saying "Rand said this" when she didn't, then yes, I'm going to say you didn't get it. They're literally fucking lying.
>>83372523
Like this dumb fuck.
Rand used the term INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS its everywhere in her writing, which
>>83372584
>Seems to be the most common gripe, a near autistic obsession with rigid facts and 'logic' of her system. And why wouldn't it? Objectivism is one of the most systematic philosophies to exist, it seems to appeal to people that think very systematically.
Yeah because it's an obsession with TRUTH. Because you can't straight up lie about someone and get away with it. Sorry someone calls you out on your bullshit spewing.
>>83372672
>Wow calm down and breath.
How about you admit you don't actually know a fucking thing about my philosophy and you're just making shit up? How about you do that?
>"But not TOO morally bankrupt now."
No it says HAVE MORALS AT ALL AND DONT BETRAY THEM.
>without looking outside of yourself, and thinking only in relation to you?
Again you display you have NO FUCKING CLUE what you are talking about because the reason it's called OBJECTivism is because it says "REALITY IS OBJECTIVE" and you are not the center of reality, there is no primacy of consciousness. Reality exists and you're just part of it. So you either go with reality and survive or you go against it and have problems and die. That's about as "looking outside of yourself" as it gets.
I'm selfish but I know the universe wasn't built for me. Unlike your "selfless" Christian who thinks the whole universe was created for them.
>>83372735
See? This guy got it. It's not that hard /co/.
>>83372976
We're not, we're discussing a pretty decent superhero flick.
If we were discussing meme ideologies we'd be *Sniff* posting.
>>83372954
>yeah well 'Cancer' isn't one disease anyway. It's millions, possibly trillions of mutations that occur when our cells stop suiciding like they're supposed to when they get too fucked up.
Yeah, that's the other part of why it's a dumb trope, but I'm less familiar with biology/medicine than with the economical and social aspects of it all.
>but 'cured cancer' is an easy thing to toss out. "world hunger solved" has a similar issue. Feel free to exchange both for 'functional space stations with earth to space immigration policies"
Yeah there's not enough cool space colonization mainstream stories. I wanted to write one (with PIRATES IN SPACE!) but I'm lazy, untalented and not well-versed enough in science.
If you're interested there's a pretty good one in Tuf Voyaging dealing with overpopulation.
>>83370550
Just realised that he was pretty much the cause of all the heroes having to retire which resulted in Mr Incredible to have a shitty life. What a dick.
>>83372979
he did and he's hardly the only philosopher to say as such.
>>83372988
well I was speaking in a modern context. I don't expect a 5th century german serf who'd have a hard time understanding a lot of modern thought to get a treatise on secular humanism or whatever.
I was speaking in a modern context, because y'know. Most of the people I know come from modern first world countries and have a modern education and get that religion doesn't equal moral thought.
Religion served a lot of functions that secular groups do now, legal arbitration, education, record keeping and so on. But now we have secular groups to do this so aside from providing people with solace, a sense of community, and the odd charity they don't have much use that governments or businesses can't fulfill.
>>83373006
>you literally cure a part of the human condition
I think you misunderstand what "condition" means here.
>Human immortality is only a step away from that.
Not really, no. And even then that's assuming human immortality is a good thing.
>>83373048
never heard of Tuf Voyaging, give me the spiel.
One Idea I had for a space colonization story involved a giant space train that used magnetic acceleration rings installed in stations to ship resources from the asteroid belt back to earth. I should try doing something with it.
>>83372824
>>83372848
Replying to that comic and the subject at hand. I've found a more beautiful morality in Objectivism than with Christianity. I feel I'm being a good person for my own sake, because I want to be one, not for some reward I'll get after I die. I have to rely on myself and my own will to get through things, not rely on some consciousness.
But the whole "evolution says no morals" is such crap. That's where Rand did have a gap, she didn't connect the philosophy to evolution and biology as much. But she lived in a time where we didn't know as much. Read pic related if you want to see how evolution gave us morality, we literally evolved because we took care of our children and our families better than other species. It wasn't survival of the most ruthless or violent species it was survival of the best parents and the ones who took care of their kids the best.
And it's SURPRISE rationally selfish to want take care of your kids.
>>83373015
>Rand used the term INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS its everywhere in her writing, which
I've read Rand's works. The usage of 'rights' is almost exclusively referred in the context to write to property, and right to not be harmed or suffer force/fraud.
>Yeah because it's an obsession with TRUTH.
What a dumb obsession.
No wait truth isn't dumb. (Capitalizing truth is)
Obsessing with certainty that it is, however is very dumb. Rand didn't even have the closest understanding of quantum physics. She was skeptical of evolution and psychology and all her 50's sciences of the day, what would she know about truth?
>Because you can't straight up lie
Most lies aren't so 'straight up'. Nothing is straight up.
There's lies of Omission, lies of discordant value/interpretation, even lies of fledgling comprehension. If you could spar your intellect for a moment, you'd realize that someone may make a statement not confounding with the others point of view, but that doesn't make them a liar.
>How about you do that?
>ImaToughGuy.jpg
>No it says HAVE MORALS
Literally what that posts says.
Do you reading compression?
>So you either go with reality and survive or you go against it and have problems and die.
And at no point are others considered part of what you're going against and what you have to consider? I don't really think you expect me to believe that you think Morals or a platonic state of being a 'good person' are somehow a part of reality when you just stated that one has to try to have morals.
>Unlike your "selfless" Christian who thinks the whole universe was created for them.
But I don't think that. It's exactly because the universe wasn't built for me that we cannot afford to be selfish, you silly dolt. If there was a God I'd probably be a selfish prick. We'd all get eternity in paradise anyway, why not?
I don't even know how I found myself arguing with someone this dense.
>>83373122
>never heard of Tuf Voyaging, give me the spiel.
Only GRR Martin I've read. Going from memory from years ago, it's like 6 short stories of a fat space merchant who loves cats, who stumbles upon an abandonned ancient Noah's ark spaceship that can terraform planets and create life and shit. Each short story is him going to a different planet that is faced with different social or ecological issues and sort of dealing with that (to his own best interests in general).
It's entertaining, the planets are pretty diverse. Quite a lot of talking and political dealings, don't know if that's your thing.
>One Idea I had for a space colonization story involved a giant space train that used magnetic acceleration rings installed in stations to ship resources from the asteroid belt back to earth. I should try doing something with it.
Yeah my thing involved the asteroid belt too, it makes sense to colonize it and it has a cool carribean archipelago feel to it.
>>83373128
I think there's something of interest, I won't say beautifully but, almost noumenally (A Kantian word, woo!) about Objectivism. It denies the pantheon of hierarchical dialectic gymnastics of the last few centuries and says "Nigga this is you you're here and this is the world DEAL WITH IT fukko", and that's a very interesting premise to start with.
>Pic related character would've loved it
But then she squanders it all on her own gripes and dissatisfactions and tells you the best way TO deal with it is just, ugh, to build buildings and factories and shit. For her "Self-interest" and Value mean specific, hard-lined things and anyone pursuing anything but lining their pockets and if it's anything she disagrees with well they're just suckers right?
And evolution never 'evolved' morality, atleast anything but a shitty one. If you mean some terrible tribal system where we sometimes recognize the klan and pity then man fuck that shit. That's what made us goat-fuckers for eons.
>And it's SURPRISE rationally selfish to want take care of your kids
Not really, unless you're expecting them to donate you an organ or work for you as a slave. Pouring resources into creating more genes benefits you in the strict Randian sense, absolutely nothing. That's my gripe with it and Objectivism.
>And it's SURPRISE rationally selfish to want take care of your kids.
Rand herself would've found that statement objectively wrong.
>But she lived in a time where we didn't know as much.
Blatant horseshit.
>>83373128
Yeah altruism vs individualsim is a bit of a false dichotomy, it's usually beneficial to yourself to be altruist towards the people of your own group, at least to a point.
And altruism in that sense is arguably pretty hard-coded in lots of animal species.
>>83373211
huh, I should look into that. Ever read 'Beowulf's Children?' by larry niven? Focuses on the second generation of space colonists who are, unsurprisingly, colonizing a planet.
In general the big colonizing possibilities for Sol System are Luna, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, and the moons around the gas giants. You could drop nanomachines on Mercury to convert it into a giant mirror and beam sunlight to collection stations across the solar system and so on.
A lot of possibilities with emergent technologies really.
Oh and a neat RPG called The Technomancer comes out this month, it's set on mars after a colonization event goes bad and the descendents are cut off from earth and forced to survive, all the animals on it are gene engineered for the planet and it has some real neat designs so give that a look maybe.
>>83373244
>And altruism in that sense is arguably pretty hard-coded in lots of animal species
I'd argue that it, and social cooperation as a whole is the only thing responsible for evolved intelligence. Which makes Ayn's philosophy all the more absurd in retrospect.
>>83373255
>Ever read 'Beowulf's Children?' by larry niven? Focuses on the second generation of space colonists who are, unsurprisingly, colonizing a planet.
Nah, my knowledge of sci-fi is cursory at best. Anything special about it?
>In general the big colonizing possibilities for Sol System are Luna, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, and the moons around the gas giants.
Yeah that's what I figured in the little research I did.
>The Technomancer
Story/universe seems lame but that's par for the course for vydia imo. Creatures look cool, combat looks like shit. I don't follow vydia much so I was unaware.
>>83373366
>Anything special about it?
In particular? Not really, aside from Niven being one of the great old men of scifi. He wrote a story called 'ringworld' in the 70s. If you ever played Halo you've seen a version of the construct he laid out in his book. It's a neat story and worth reading is all.
>>83373300
>the only thing
Nah, oversimplification sucks anon. Besides as I said it exists in other species. There's lots of factors, but yeah, it's one of them.
>>83373394
>He wrote a story called 'ringworld' in the 70s.
Yeah I heard about that. It's in my "to read, some day" list. It's a long list because I'm a lazy man.
>If you ever played Halo
I have not.
>>83373236
>Rand herself would've found that statement objectively wrong.
...
And this is why you're not getting a full reply because I'm not wasting my time with your blatantly lying pseudo-intellectual ass anymore.
>>83373430
Halo's a decent FPS but honestly it's nothing special, has a bit more story than is to be expected from a scifi game but it's pretty common for people to have played it.
Niven's also noteworthy for coining the term 'rishathra' which is a term for having sex with a sapient outside of your own species. It was scifi slang for awhile and his Kzinti no doubt inspired the Kilrathi from Wing Commander.
>>83373408
Okay I didn't mean literally the only thing, no need to over-emphasize that with 3 words. But it's a huge part of becoming smart.
Obviously not the only factor however. Octopi are pretty asocial and high up there on the smarts department.
>>83373446
>I cannot understand that others have a different POV so they must be lying
>Why don't they think like an autistic objectivist like me who assumes everyone thinks the same!
Riddle me this, then why didn't Rand have children?
>>83373510
presumably no one could put up with her hypocrisy enough to actually want to fuck her.
Nevermind your blatant baiting and or self delusion.
>>83373455
I think I'm more of a space opera/genre IN SPACE guy than a sci fi guy.
>>83373529
I include Pulp Sci Fi/Space Opera in sci fi.
Hard Sci Fi is it's own thing.
>>83373524
I cannot help it! Black-White thinking Randoids are so easy to bait. Every caps lock shift-key spasm is like a tickle to the gut.
>>83373491
Hey man, that's why you don't use hyperboles, how am I supposed to know that you're being mediterranean and not just stupid.
>Octopi are pretty asocial and high up there on the smarts department.
They happen have opposable limbs, funnily enough.
>>83373551
>baiting randroids
I'd say ISHYGDDT
but randroids are delusional fuckwads who deserve social ostracization until they reassess their lives so carry on my wayward son.
>>83373551
Oh so you're admitting you're lying on purpose just to get me riled up? Typical shitposter.
But when I got you off from replies, it's
>Mommy, mommy, make him come back! Make him come back to I can waste his time some more! Mommy!
No. Fuck you.
>>83373510
No you are LITERALLY lying. You are saying "Ayn Rand would not have agreed with X" when I read in her own goddamn words that she agrees with X. That's the fucking lie, but you knew that?
Just go back to jacking back to jacking off to tranny porn or whatever the fuck you Homestruck autists do when you're not being shitposters.
>>83373621
what's more pathetic? A shitposter who baits a delusional loser or someone who's so delusional they bluntly ignore Rand's often contradictory statements on morality because it's convenient to their juvenile belief system?
>>83373651
What's worse someone who actually read her work or someone who just makes shit up as he goes along to pretend he's having an actual discussion when he just admitted he's being a stupid shit poster?
Have you finished cumming yet? I can't imagine how hard this disagreement is getting your 3 inch cock.
>Homestuck autists
>The Randtard posts Code Geass instead
POTTERY
>>83373673
No see I'm not the original troll I'm someone unrelated who read her work and just saw one long, delusion, angry bitchy rant that stemmed from bolshevik's ruining her life and how she basically fucking never got over it and made up a incoherent ideology that exists so losers like you can wank off to the idea that they're special. and the chosen ones.
you're only really useful as a way to waste my time. You will never provide anything to society because you live in open contempt of human cooperation and follow an ideology that concerns itself more with people's sacred right to own property rather than our sacred rights to, you know, be alive and happy. On top of that you bluntly lie about what rand believed in.
Did you read her books or just get bored halfway through and pick up the crib notes?
>>83370550
yeah thats kinda the point
>>83373673
Anon you sound just like those Biblio nuts that screech out with their bibles quoting scripture going "I'VE READ THE BIBLE WHERE'S YOUR PASSAGE!"
The very facet of your rhetoric that you keep tossing around the fact that you've read Randian garbage like it's some kind of crowning achievement is laudable.
>>83373673
>Arguing from Authority: The Fallacy: Ayn Retard edition
Look you sub-human nutsack, it's been ages since I've pulled out one of her tombs. But from what little I remember in her writing, I got the impression that she did not regard it as a moral duty for a woman to have children. Not unless they had some sociopathic 'rational' purpose that would return the value exchange or whatever that offset the cost-effort of raising one.
You claim you're some Rand connoisseur right? What an accomplishment, but take notice. None of the patronized heroes in the doorstoppers had children. I'm not saying she forbid it, since I reason 'rationally' she'd consider it a woman's personal choice and one that had to be made self-interested, but she made no real effort to push forth the idea that there was anything heroic or truly virtuous about siring heirs and continuing your legacy, or enjoying the experience of raising offspring. that should be taken lightly.
The only context in which she supported children at all, was as a means to an end towards self-interest. They're discussed like property, as a house or possession. That sort of inhuman, meticulous and agenda cannot be reconciled with anything humanly supporting the prerogative to have children.
In closing;
>"The capacity to procreate is merely a potential which man is not obligated to actualize. The choice to have children or not is morally optional. Nature endows man with a variety of potentials--and it is his mind that must decide which capacities he chooses to exercise, according to his own hierarchy of rational goals and values."
You may disagree with me if you like and my interpretation of her. But that does not make me a liar. But to someone who thinks in black in white without compromise, that simple concept is impossible for you to wrap your head around.And I think I will, thanks for the tip! I'm sure Rand would've supported this as well given her views on homosexuality :^)
>>83373724
>Did you read her books or just get bored halfway through and pick up the crib notes?
Did you? I didn't read have your stupid ranty whiny beta-cuck bitchfest post.
See I can insult you too. I'd rather not but you guys prove that you'd rather just shit talk so go jack off to you interracial cuckolding porn and never talk about shit you don't know about ever again.
>>83373715
Reddit doesn't know what a reaction image is. I know. It's hard for newfags to understand this.
>>83373752
Okay.
Okay lets play your game.
Lets fucking play it.
Alan Moore is a registered Republican. He fucking LOVED Nixon. He was totally campaigning for him and everything.
Your turn.
Gandi said you should kill your enemies and eat their insides. After that you should rape their enemies just to make sure they're good and defeated.
Your turn /co/!
George W Bush said there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Your turn /co/!
>>83373883
>>83373930
>this guy
>>83373883
Oh, so you get to pick apart another persons choice of images but when someone else does it they're a newfag from reddit.
I suddenly feel my rights being violated, the right to not be subjected to such stupidity.
>>83373883
>>83373930
>>83373944
>He's completely lost itI feel like I'm being trolled, are you nutso? I've never dealt with someone this out of their element before, you having a giggle m8
Anon pls
Do continue
>>83373978
Girls actually have sex with you!
Your turn /co/!
>>83373983
Well shitposter dropped the context to make a shitpost and you're still shitposting yourself to not see it. Nice turd post bro.
But just for my own amusement I'm actually going to explain this. See I said "homestruck autist" because that poster or you or whoever it was posting several pictures and they knew about the characters in it. I point that out and they point out the reaction image I use comes from an anime. Okay. It's not like you haven't seen this same image being floated around this website.
See it's called "CONTEXT" and you dropped it harder than your mother dropped you at birth.
>>83373878
>I got the impression that she did not regard it as a moral duty for a woman to have children
And you do? So woman are just breeding machines to you, is that it?
DO YOU JUST WANT ALL WOMAN TO GET IMPREGNATED ON YOUR SICK FAT DICK, IS THAT YOUR GAME? That's why you hate Rand, right, she's a woman with intelligence who doesn't want to hump your bible or suck your dick and become a baby factory. You disgusting fucker.
Not even that same anon but I AM DISGUSTED.
>>83374040
You're stupid to get it aren't you. It's okay, some people are retarded and lack basic pattern recognition...
Like this whole thread besides me apparently.
Barak Obama is an avid gun right supporter and has campaigned hard for looser laws on gun control.
Your turn /co/!
>>83374087
>And you do? So woman are just breeding machines to you, is that it?
That anon did not say that, you're arguing through strawman. That's a no-no.
>>83374075
You have actually a point to make and aren't just shitposting about how everyone misunderstands your 2deep4u philosophy.
You are actually giving explanations and quoting passages of Rand's books to prove your points rather than resorting to blatant fallacies like false equivalencies and gratuitous name-calling (which you didn't start at all).
You are entirely capable of distinguishing an interpretation that differs from yours from a lie, making you apt at discussing philosphy like an adult.
Your turn, anon.
>>83374075
what the hell does that have to do with anything?
You posted a stupid anime image. The other anon did but apparently knew about the characters, the fucks it matter.
my original shitpost was in response to your argument being dumb and you two being fucktarded.
Whoeverse right or wrong, its probably not people on the internet posting cartoon characters. But apparently if I point that out hurr durr I'm a newfag from redit for not soliciting your dumb reaction images.
Go you!
>>83374119
>>83374119
But anon your a randtard where does this pattern recognition shit come from?
It cannot be part of reality so it must be inside you
and it cannot be inside you since you OBJECTIVELY exist
>Your turn /co/!
Are you just shitposting because people don't agree with your pet philosophy? I've seen religiocats get less bent up than you son.
>>83370912
Syndrome was killing off superheroes and causing damage to make himself look good. In the end, Syndrome is misguided. He believes he is helping, but is actually doing more harm than good. I wouldn't entrust him with any superpower-giving devices.
>>83374157
>The other anon did but apparently knew about the characters, the fucks it matter.
Sorry you don't know what the "dropping the context" means. Go ahead and find out for yourself because it's not my duty to make you not a fucking retard. That's on you moron.
>>83374154
>You are entirely capable of distinguishing an interpretation that differs from yours from a lie, making you apt at discussing philosphy like an adult.
Karl Marx was a Christian Conserative Capitalist Republican!
That's my "interpretation" of Karl Marx!
Your turn /co/!
>Be me lurking
>This thread
>Don't even know whose trolling who anymore
>Don't care
>mfw
>>83374225
You're smart and are sure teaching us a lesson about the arts of arguing philosophy through logic, rather than being overwhelmed by your emotions and shitposting as loudly as you can.
It's not getting cute at all.
That's my interpretation of your posts.
Your turn, anon.
>>83374225
>This is seriously how black and white rand-tards think
You cannot even give a single quote from Rand that supports that it might be good, enjoyable or beneficial to have children, outside the optional pragmatic dealio can you? Can you? Where's the 'Truth' in your interpretation, if you cannot even argue like an adult without misdirection you shouldn't have scooted along from the kiddy table.
At this point you're just blatantly shitposting to misdirect. Nyat's nyat very mice of mew anyon :33~
>>83374193
>He still hasn't figured it out.
Troll harder or think harder. But see you won't because getting the pattern requires any one of you dumb fuckers to stop shitposting and you won't.
I gave up trying to have a rational discussion with people blantantly fucking lying, baiting and shitposting. Excuse me for not putting up with your bullshit. When I do it back to you, you freak out like children.
>>83374177
Everyone else is allowed to that? Why not me? Why the fuck not? I'm sick of giving the benefit of the doubt to people.
>>83374303
Not a single one of has picked on this obvious pattern. Not a single fucking one.
Adolf Hitler loved Jews. He actually helped them build the nation of Israel.
Your turn /co/!
>>83374305
>At this point you're just blatantly shitposting to misdirect.
Says the fucking liar. Says. The. Fucking. Liar.
>>83374317
>trying to have a rational discussion with people blantantly fucking lying
>>83374305
>>83373878
>>"The capacity to procreate is merely a potential which man is not obligated to actualize. The choice to have children or not is morally optional. Nature endows man with a variety of potentials--and it is his mind that must decide which capacities he chooses to exercise, according to his own hierarchy of rational goals and values."
I'm still waiting anon, the only one shitposting off course here is you.
If you'd like, we can drop the topic and you can so virtuously try to argue that Rand wasn't a raging Homophobe while dancing around the most scandalous of evidence. But why do that, the gays are objectively icky right? Your cult leader Rand said so.
>>83374317
>Everyone else is allowed to that?
Are they? I don't know, it's usually seen as a dick move.
>I'm sick of giving the benefit of the doubt to people.
So why do you expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt?
Why would anyone think you have anything of value to add to the conversation when all you've said is "you don't get it, liar".
Prove that you understand Rand better, show people how they're wrong, rather than literally just shitposting about how smart you are. You haven't tried to have a rational discussion, at all.
Or hell, make a post that adds value to the thread and give us your interpretation of The Incredibles through your understanding of Objectivism. I'd find that interesting.
>>83374379
what, that you're saying outrageous and potentially in-factual things in some misguided attempt to make some straw-point that we grasped from the first shitpost,
rather than say, debate like a real man with real arguements? Ready to graduate from gradeschool yet?
See you get rid of shitposting by staying on topic. The shifty shit poster can't stand that. They have to bring up other stuff when they've been found out.
What's the pattern in my posts /co/. Reply to that. If not, YOU'RE misdirecting and YOU'RE shitposting because if don't get it, when it's made obvious to you, then you'e either really fucking dumb or you're not getting on purpose to shitpost because you'll actually see the point I'm making.
>mfw this thread
>>83374379
>Not a single one of has picked on this obvious pattern. Not a single fucking one.
Are you fucking serious?
Are you?
>You are actually giving explanations and quoting passages of Rand's books to prove your points rather than resorting to blatant fallacies like false equivalencies and gratuitous name-calling (which you didn't start at all).
All your bullshit are false equivalencies, I just fucking said it. You're deliberately saying shit contrary to what that person famously thinks because you think that's what the anon did.
WE ALL PICKED UP ON THAT, RETARD.
That's why I followed your pattern with statemants contrary to the truth (that you're smart and can argue like an adult). The twist here is YOU DIDN'T FUCKING PICK UP ON THAT.
Are you feeling better now that I pointed out the obvious?
You sure outsmarted everyone.
Your turn.
>>83374413
Oh. Oh. Oh.
Someone's getting it.
>what, that you're saying outrageous and potentially in-factual things
Oh. Hmmm... You're ALMOST there /co/. Almost. Keep using that brain!
>some misguided attempt to make some straw-point that we grasped from the first shitpost,
And then you stir back into shitposting denial. You got the first part right, Batman what's the second part. Say it. You fucking know it. Say it.
>>83374436
Your pattern and point was asinine from the beginning. Making outrageous and non-credible statements is not an argument, do you seriously not understand that?
Do you not see the difference in the dialect of interpretation between "The Holocaust never happened" and "Ayn Rand didn't care for having Children" or whatever that goal post was? Even IF they were comparable, atleast someone can argue for one, and that takes a dialog of effort, critical thinking and intellectualize. All you've done is shitpost. This is basic debate 101 and you're throwing an ignorant tantrum.
Reality is not black and white, accept it.
>>83374466
>You fucking know it. Say it.
That you're a retarded troll and we've all been rused?
>please be right please be right
Is it possible to like/ side with a villain on /co/ without being called an edgy faggot or something?
Are people so washed by the "hero" doing whatever social media tells them to that they brand anyone who may deter from the path or be disobedient as "evil"?
This mentality has always made me think that evil was just natural and that the "good guy" is always just some bully that's being peer pressured to beat up the bad guy. Can this be proven wrong?
Is there a hero who does as he see's fit, without the approval of "stronk wimminz", AND still gets praise? Or would you just consider that a vigilante?
Also, what's the difference? Isn't any super hero that isn't "registered" or "licensed" just a vigilante, and therefore a criminal?
Sad fact: neither side has the moral high ground when you're acting on your own velition. Either be a slave or get in trouble
>>83374527
Are you new?
Never been in a "X did nothing wrong" thread?
>>83374527
Not at all. I liked Syndrome a lot, and thought the Parr family were kind of whiny annoying pompous brats a lot.
I also hate how everyone has to beat down this whole self-interest kick. As far as Objectivism in a fictionalized setting goes, it makes for great villains (Or even heroes, in Rorschach's case) and is really interesting. Give me the most self-centered mentality of a character who only serves their ends to move the plot along, without approval or anything.
> Isn't any super hero that isn't "registered" or "licensed" just a vigilante, and therefore a criminal?
Punisher?
Anyway, I think Rands philosophy is great when applied to a body of ideas and literature, like say Freud. They just shouldn't be anywhere near a governing body, anymore that an old timey psychotherapist should be near children analyzing their penis envy or wet dreams.
>>83374562
Are you?
Did you not read the question? All of those threads always boil down to "you're politics and morals are all fucked up kill yourself".
>>83374456
Hey.
Hey hey hey wait a minute.
>Those Caps-locks
>Changes typing style mid post
Now I know I've been rused.
>>83370912
Syndrome wanted to be more special than anyone else. He wanted to kill every other hero and rise to superhero status himself while fighting made up villains. Then, "After I've had my fun." he'll just hand his tech out. Like he's some kind of saint
Syndrome is a chode
>>83374581
You can like and sympathize a character without agreeing with their politics or morals.
>>83374618
Sounds like Tony Stark.
>>83374618
Well yeah I mean he's kind of a little bitch. But so is Amon and Cyclops, you see past it. If anything it just makes a character less one dimensional to me, rather than if he was just evil for the sake of it.
>>83374481
>>83374456
>You're deliberately saying shit contrary to what that person famously thinks because you think that's what the anon did.
>Making outrageous and non-credible statements is not an argument, do you seriously not understand that?
And you and several other people are doing the same thing about Ayn Rand.
And yeah if you didn't get it and say at first, then you were deliberately shitposting calling me an idiot instead of picking up on it. That's dishonest too.
You just proved my fucking point. I'm a prophet. I knew you guys picked up on it, but you see the point I'm making about that. But since that point BTFO of you, you're in denial about it. And the point is that anon and other anons in this thread are lying about what Ayn Rand said or believed, even straight backwards lies. I'm not going to give a serious argument to someone who can't even get their facts straight anymore than I'd argue with someone who says the ridiculous statements I was making.
Also
>"Ayn Rand didn't care for having Children"
That fucker didn't say that. I said "It's within your rational self-interest to have kids" and he said RAND WOULD DISAGREE and even the quote he presented still doesn't contradict that. She basically said if you want to have them, have them. That's the whole point of rational self interest, if that's what makes you happy and it doesn't hurt other people than go ahead and do it.
And funny too I don't quote Rand because last time we had this same fucking thread I got shitposted for quoting Rand. This is I have zero fucking tolerance for this. There is no winning with /co/ on this subject and I'm not playing nice with /co/ anymore on the subject.
>>83374639
Except Stark at least fought actual villainy. Syndrome's plan was to only fight his own robots as a public spectacle.
>>83374581
>some people disagree with me that means everybody does
The reason these threads even exist is that some people agree with you. Hell have you seen the number of Frankfags that exist?
>>83374614
No I just got really angry for a second. You wish people that stupid didn't really exist.
I can do the link thing as "proof" if you want.
>>83374379
Is me.
>>83374303
Isn't.
>>83374456
Is.
>>83374653
He's basically evil though. He wanted to be worshipped and didn't care who he killed to get there, and on top of that refused to put himself in any real danger. Too bad he built a robot that was programmed to learn how to destroy its own remotr control
>>83374675
Hah, I fucked up the post order
>>83374379
Isn't me.
>>83374303
>>83374456
Is me.
>>83370912
Except Syndrome was probably going to focus on selling his tech to the highest bidder and "Everyone is super" is mostly one-percenters
>>83374675
>This is me
>That's MY post
Wat?
>>83374631
That wasn't my question.
Are there any main stream villains with sound morals and ideals? Would it be possible to be a skeptic villain who people like, without being literally insane or a murder? (Joker, Punisher, etc)
I want to create a bad guy people can't even say is a bad guy. More along the lines that he's does so much good for the people who need it that they start to question in large who's side the heroes are actually on.
Also, make it so you can't simply "arrest" them, like you can't arrest superman, so you HAVE to deal with what he has to say. Just like how we have to deal we the the shallow end "do good or I punch you" mentality.
SO how old will Dash, Violet and JJ be in the sequel?
>>83374731
Old enough
>>83374663
>actual villainly
I'm sorry, could you explain this thoroughly? Didn't Stark create most of his enemies through byproduct of his inventions? It's the same thing, except Stark's version worked.
Why are you trying to act like they aren't the same character? The only difference is Syndrome admits the plan, Stark goes "its not my fault my creations ruined their life but i'll still take the hero trophy for beating up the bad guys I MADE".
>>83374740
Bueno
>>83374656
I think you're really out of your element here bub. Call it another LIE but, interpreting this situation, your little 'pattern' ruse or whatever you called it was so low level and moronic there was deliberately no point to it nor to address it with. It didn't really have anything to do with the argument other than make the case that you thought interpretations and lies were mutually exclusive which we already knew.
And overall you just came off as a big idiot.
You come off as a bigger idiot when you use statements like "But since that point BTFO of you." And you come off as the biggest idiot when you cannot understand that interpretations are not lies.
Objectivist-Anon is an idiot.
Is that a lie? Who knows, by what standard can we measure it by? This thread, certainty. But your life, what do we know of? Your views, your education, by an IQ test? You need to grasp the important point that, to people who aren't Objectivist and don't think in cubes and neat boxes, a statement you disagree with is not a definitive lie. It might contain traces of falsehood or be blatantly dismissive, but simply calling it a lie doesn't hold any argumentative power.
In the same way calling a Vaccine-Hoaxer or an Holocaust Denier a liar, however many times doesn't actually form a counter-argument or have any substantive weight to it. Who knows, you might even find out there's more to an argument than being simply 'right or wrong', for once. Do you understand this basic concept? I'm trying to help you but you just come off as really dense, and even more so in the usual Objectivist fasion, like legitimately autistic in the extent of your rigid thinking.
You can think Truth is True, A is A and Objective Reality exists all you want, but when you debate in an argument you need to put that aside and try to see the other party's point of view in order to convince anybody of anything, or get anything out of it.
Okay?
tl;dr, don't be an idiot.
No one likes "That guy."
>>83374785
you don't actually know anything about stark. He started as a commie basher, fought guys like the Red Dynamo and Titanium Man who had their own suits of armor, other guys like the Living Laser who were a product of science and so on. The movies compress his story because it's easier to say 'arc reactors' rather than 'soviet funded super science.'
>>83374656
>And you and several other people are doing the same thing about Ayn Rand.
No, that's why I called it a false equivalency.
Even if that was the case, it should be easy for you to demonstrate that the anon is wrong, rather than resorting to being a dumbass.
>And yeah if you didn't get it and say at first, then you were deliberately shitposting calling me an idiot instead of picking up on it. That's dishonest too.
>not expressly pointing out obvious shit but rather not-so-subtly joke about it means you're lying about not getting it, because I didn't get your joke
Jesus Christ.
>You just proved my fucking point. I'm a prophet. I knew you guys picked up on it, but you see the point I'm making about that. But since that point BTFO of you, you're in denial about it.
There's no point in false equivalencies. It's like unpeeled oranges.
>straight backwards lies
That's a mombo-jumbo of unfortunate figures of style.
By the way I wasn't one of the people arguing the point, just making fun of your argumentative technique.
>>83374656
>It's within your rational self-interest to have kids
>Rand would disagree with this statement
Okay. Where's the proof for this? Show me a statement where she'd agree with that, no one's hammering you here.
>This is I have zero fucking tolerance for this.
And that's why you're a huge tool. God, you remind me so much of Eridan it's sickening, whiny and deplorable.
>>83374726
Then he's not a bad guy, just an antagonist.
Those exist, but rarely in action/kids material, which comprises most of the stuff /co/ cares about.
>>83374693
Yeeeah he's evil I know he's a supervillain that's what evil guys like him do. Doesn't make him less cool.
>>83374726
Moon Knight, kinda.
>I want to create a bad guy people can't even say is a bad guy.
Ah, you need Animes for that!
Maybe try a series like Mirrai Nikkai or HxH.
>>83374857
Kek, I love when you guys do the whole "do you even read comics bro".
It honestly doesn't matter what I, or the public, knows about Stark. Just like how it doesn't matter that Jesus wasn't white, everyone accepts his image as that white guy with a beard and long brown hair.
I'm talking on a mass level, not a you and me, or a "here on /co/" level. The movies are putting him in a similar situation to Syndrome's. We've got your classic capeshit childhood trauma of "much parents" for Tony, since we don't even SEE Buddy's parents or wonder if he obtained his riches the same way.
If instead, he would have made it to look like the superheroes we're after him instead of his robots, he could've played the same sympathy card Tony did and said "you have to let me make super tec for you guys! If you don't, they'll come back and do to you what they did to me!", since we all know how easily people fall for the slippery slope.
>>83374865
It's not a false equivalency if it's actually true Anon.
Why respond to something that is a lie?
>>83374894
>Where's the proof for this?
>Show me a statement
There is no one statement. It's just application of the philosophy which is about objective reality and operating in it to your own self-interest. If you truly desire to have kids and that makes you happy, then do it because that's within your rational self-interest to do so. If you don't want to have kids, don't have kids, it's within your rational self-interest to do so.
I can't make it any simpler than that. Ask any other Objectivist and they'll tell you the same thing.
>>83370796
reee
>>83375051
>It's not a false equivalency if it's actually true Anon.
I don't think you understand the concept of false equivalencies. Either that or you don't understand the concept of subjectivity, as >>83374854 said.
>>83375011
technically Jesus was probably white as we'd qualify it at the time. More grecian in appearance.
Nevermind tony having nothing to do with syndrome's motivations or methods. One guy is petulantly killing off superheroes. Another guy has a supersuit and is sort of randomly adventuring across a world with other superheroes because Scifi just isn't something marvel does any more.
Why not compare superman to frodo while you're at it? they have as much in common.
>>83375103
Yeah, they're both faggots.
>>83375051
you don't seem to understand the concept of nuance.
Which is unsurprising as Objectivism desperately tries to destroy nuance and create a moral void where you can only be one thing or the other.
you bluntly and obviously don't understand what truth is, nor do you seem to grasp that objectivism isn't a coherent philosphy.
Nevermind that reality isn't Objective, it's highly subjective especially since the human brain bluntly edits and even fabricates memory out of whole cloth.
your precious little philosophy isn't just socially toxic it's biologically impossible.
>>83375101
I don't think you guys understand the concept of false equivalencies. That concept didn't appeal to what I was doing, it may look similar but that's where your making shallow assumptions instead of thinking logically.
Why should I respond to blatant lies? I can't argue with someone who's just lying, it throws the whole discussion out the window and it becomes pointless. So I presented examples of me lying to show that it would be equally ridiculous for you to take that seriously and try to argue with me on it.
That's not a false equivalency anon. That's just a desperate attempt to get you guys to admit those anons were lying and bullshiting by presenting a ridiculous, hyperbolic example of what they're doing.
>>83375162
Damn, hit him with the bantz. Might as well call yourself Lex.
>>83375051
Okay well I pulled up a direct quote of Rand saying
>"I want to create a bad guy people can't even say is a bad guy."
and my reasoning for why I doubt she'd see child-raising as self-interested.
Giving me a "general application" argument is kind of vague and abstract. Weak enough. My own point to this dumb argument, whenever it was started, was from the interpretation that, generally speaking,
> that makes you happy, then do it because that's within your rational self-interest to do so
Was a kind of carde blanche faux pas of a generality that Rand might've said, but her ideology doesn't support. I mean it allows it within limitations, in theory, but Randian ethos doesn't actually encourage unless you make leaps and bounds.
It all stems from Self-Interest not stretching far enough to mean "Self-Goal" or "Self-Motivation".
For example, take the Indians or Native Landers. Isn't it their happiness to roam the land freely? What about the Pornographer to enjoy erotica?, someone engaging in dangerous contact sports. Or a loving mother raising 11 kids she cannot afford?
One can stretch self-interest to 'enjoyment', but it's usually used in the sense of possession and obtainment. Self Interest, in Randian terms doesn't translate over to Love, or Spirituality, or frivolousness, it doesn't take into account the different (Selfless) ways people embrace life or the values they share and experience, since it's very much grounded both in it's time and in Rand's own ideals. Unless they were producing wealth it's doubtful her philosophy would approve.
Rand doesn't understand that some people can be happier acting against their own 'self-interest' in the way she'd narrowly define it, because she'd never accept the stretching of the definition otherwise. Might be better Self-Interest for a druggie to stay in school and become an Office Manager, or a Mother not to have 11 kids and bet on stocks, but that won't make them happy.
Rand wouldn't approve.
>>83375162
>Which is unsurprising as Objectivism desperately tries to destroy nuance and create a moral void where you can only be one thing or the other.
Because that's how REALITY works. Are you a fish? Are you? You're either a fish or a human, but according to you -- you're both because reality doesn't exist.
>Nevermind that reality isn't Objective, it's highly subjective especially since the human brain bluntly edits and even fabricates memory out of whole cloth.
And that's why can't grasp Objectivism. Because you can't even see reality for what it is. It's real. It's not what you make up. Just because you/we make up reality in our head doesn't mean that if you jump off a cliff, gravity wont exist and it will still take you down with it.
>>83375237
>Why should I respond to blatant lies?
Why respond at all? You obvious think you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and all your little objectivist buddies like you said
>Ask any other Objectivist and they'll tell you the same thing.
All think the same thing as you do. No surprise at all.
How do you expect to live in a world where people who have different subjective viewpoints from you are labeled as liars and heretics? I don't get how you'll ever experience subtly or subjectivity that way. You just expect everyone to think the same and if anyone doesn't, they're either retarded or defective, or liars. I cannot even imagine living in such a small bubble ideologically.
>>83375347
Don't get sucked into this one, you'll bang your head against the nail and bleed it dry before you ever get an Objectivtard to properly define "Self-Interest" without contradicting their ideals.
>>83375353
>Because that's how REALITY works.
No it doesn't you stupid twerp. First off, Reality doesn't work. Secondly, Reality doesn't exist. It's just something you made up in your head and you can never be apart of fully.
For instance,
>Are you a fish?
Define a fish.
But without words and more definitions
>you're both
Yes, we share DNA with fish. And many organs. To what percent and extent I cannot say, maybe comparisons cannot all be made in % though, ever consider that? But is a Fish a Fish? Are all Fish Fish? At what point does a Fish stop being a Fish? Doesn't this contradict reality, to have something not be something else? For instance,
Are you?
How should I know?
Phenomenologically speaking there's no way to prove I'm me and not, not-me, or even any way to define my own self-identity without contradicting myself.
>Because you can't even see reality for what it is.
No, that's why Objectivism is wrong. No one, absolutely no one can.
>It's real.
Heidegger disagrees.
Just curious, have you ever looked at any philosophy outside of Objectivism? There's 3000 years of it to examine and your ideals are just from one source. The Greeks had hundreds, Europeans probably more so, Asians many others. Why are you so certain that, much like religious folks, your epistemological and ontological frame work is the correct one?
>gravity wont exist
Gravity doesn't exist. There's no such thing as Gravity, Objectively speaking.
It's just a relationship, an interaction between Weak-Strong Fundamental Forces demonstrated by redshift expansion. If the universe started shrinking buddy, you'd be heading up that cliff, away from Earth.
>>83375353
Why are you so convinced that Reality is something happening to you, rather than something you're making happen every second every second with your thoughts and actions?
>>83375614
A relationship doesn't exist? I don't see how things being made of other things makes them unexist.
>>83375718
>A relationship doesn't exist?
Objectively speaking. I'm only talking in terms of subjectivity.
Subjectivity is needed to grasp the existence of a connection or relationship between particulars and Universals, without witch are impossible to demarcate the proper limitations of as far as phenomenological experience goes.
Objectivity only believes in primal essences, so a = a, it's unacceptable for a + b = b + a or a*2 = a+a, even since those contain different particular categories of universals.
>>83370912
>Meanwhile, Buddy is portrayed as horrible just because his actions would've made Superheros obsolete.
No you gibbering retard, he's portrayed as horrible because he wanted to be the only special snowflake in the world until he got ancient, and he murdered thirty different retired actual superheroes so he could just pretend to be one, all because his childhood hero was mean to him. And because he was an unscrupulous arms dealer.
You are literally too dumb for a movie made for children.
>>83370550
He's basically your average /co/ poster if they were in the Brad Bird universe
>>83376871
I know we're past the point of individual moral quandaries but it should still be added he was also willing to explode children out of the sky just to piss Bob off.
He curiously mellows out and simply has them held captive (thanks plot!) but still he seemed pretty flippant initially.
>>83375162
>Nevermind that reality isn't Objective, it's highly subjective especially since the human brain bluntly edits and even fabricates memory out of whole cloth.
You mean truth isn't objective. Reality is objective, truth is the correlation of your subjectivity with reality.
Why is everyone in this thread sucking off Ayn Rand so much? I'm not gonna pretend like I've read any of her work, but every time I've ever heard people quote or discuss her she comes off as a massive, pseudo-intellectual cunt who goes through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify being an asshole to other people. I'm planning on picking up one of her books this summer, but I'm curious if my initial impression of her is too far off base.
>>83380874
Because 4chan has a lot of massive, pseudo-intellectual cunts who go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify being an asshole to other people.
Rand's work is pretty much garbage. Its popularity comes from the fact that assholes like to be told that being an asshole is both rational and moral.
>>83380974
Have you ever read any of her stuff? No offence, but I was hoping for a response from someone who has read her work.
>>83380874
Honestly, Ayn Rand was a victim. Her family got screwed over by the revolution in Russia and the rest of her life was spent howling: I am not Communist!! Oh God (or some Randian ideal being could be substituted in), look how not Communist i am!!
She was nuts.
Apparently she was also a deeply unpleasant individual apart from that but still...
>>83372012
>being butthurt makes you not butthurt
>>83380874
Read her 2 works: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged
>>83382648
It is more likely to be:
Read book.
Stumble over John Galt`s 60 page monologue.
Close book.
Burn book.
>>83371642
He probably would have been happy for buddy having a successful life.
>>83370550
Could Elastigirl beat one of Syndrome's machines?
>>83370912
>Meanwhile, Buddy is portrayed as horrible just because his actions would've made Superheros obsolete.
He's also a murderer...Don't forget that
>>83383529
Better question is how durable is she? I mean rubber can only stretch so far, could one of the droids just grab her and stretch her to a certain length and snap her in half?
>>83370912
Buddy killed heroes just to test out his inventions, tried to kill Bob along with his wife and kids, and his plan was to stage accidents where people could get hurt just so he could save the day and look good. Then once he got too old, he would have sold his tech to the highest bidder.
>>83371128
Buddy's an arms dealer and a serial murderer who had upgraded to terrorism to promote his brand. The fact he will later sell his inventions, most likely to the extremely wealthy, does not qualify as good.
Among other things, when being rich is the only superpower that matters you STILL won't have an equal society, you'll just have a society where every CEO is a one-man army while normal people are still normal. He's pretty up front that he's just going to sell his technology once his time lording it over others is through. He's not giving it away to put the world on equal footing, he's just going to auction off his toys to the highest bidder when he's had his fun.
>>83370550
Don't forget that when Syndrome flashes back to the time Mr. Incredible turned him down, Bomb Voyage is nowhere to be seen.
It's the defining moment of his life, and he remembered it fucking wrong.
>>83370912
The 'when everyone's super' part only comes after he's retired, though. He's an asshole who wants to make the world into his own personal playground where people are only special by his standards, not their own, so he can be the most special of all.
>>83370742
He's a fucking child, from his first appearance to the end. I like pathetic villains, though, I like their despair and brash opportunism. Willing to do anything to get what they want, for ridiculously childish reasons.
>>83386035
Holy shit you're right. Never noticed that before. Wow. That's an impressive level of delusion on his part.
>What supervillain who got away because of my interference? That never happened
>WHY WOULDN'T YOU LET ME BE YOUR SIDEKICK?
>>83385259
She has a maximum length she can stretch herself to before it physically causes her pain. Any further past that and her flesh might tear, but her body seems to mimic the properties of rubber only to a certain degree. She's probably more resilient than the average human being and might shrug off some degree of blunt trauma, but she can be cut like any normal person. Her bones might not splinter but they can snap.
>>83386035
Fun fact: most people remember the defining moments of their lives wrong. The more frequently you recall something the more warped the memory becomes, until it's disassociated from reality altogether.
>>83375347
>carde blanche faux pas
France here. Stop doing that, you're misusing those words and/or spelling them wrong.
In other words, there's a je ne sais quoi wrong with your bullshit.
>>83388082
Quiptron wasn't a mistake.
>>83380874
>, but every time I've ever heard people quote or discuss her she comes off as a massive, pseudo-intellectual cunt who goes through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify being an asshole to other people.
That's because as we established, people don't have the slightly understanding of Rand at all and gave you completely false information.
Let me ask you this. If I render you a service and ask for payment, is that "justify being an asshole" to you? Because that's all Objectivism says, don't use other people and don't let other people use you. It's okay to demand things in return. Life works better with equal trade-offs. How, such asshole!
Yeah you're "asshole" to entitled people who think you're supposed to do things for them for free and they give you nothing in return.
>I'm curious if my initial impression of her is too far off base
Way off base. People on Fox News started using Rand's words out of context so now the Left just attacks her automatically and you get a bunch of lies and made up bullshit.
>>83381058
Yeah I have. Almost ALL of it. Minus like one or two books. Read them and decide for yourself. Unlike the majority of /co/ which I'm sure gets their opinions on Rand from "Liberal Memes Facebook Page." Hence the arguing in this thread with someone who's studied Rand for years and people just making shit up.
And yeah I'm made because lying people gave you the wrong impression of something that could actually benefit your life! If anything, Rand introduces you to philosophy and makes it easy to get into that helps you mold your own thinking and life choices.
>>83370794
If everyone has superpowers, nobody would be considered "Super" anymore. What makes superheroes "Super" is that they're different from everybody; they have abilities that normal people don't. If everyone had those abilities, then we wouldn't consider them special.
>>83372752
This.
