Atlas Shrugged part 3; Glad I Missed it, now.

Posted by Hiraghm 4 years ago to Movies
14 comments | Share | Flag

I've said in the past (actually, it was after watching Samantha Mathison's portrayal of Dagny's suffering at the hands of her stalker) that I'd have put a bullet in Galt at the first opportunity.

The scenes shown in this video reinforce that feeling. I dislike him intensely.

The conversational tone in the meeting scene... I've heard it before. Back in the 70s, when the cults were everywhere.

One thing that really annoyed me was when Galt threatened Dagny, coerced a promise out of her. So much for the initiation of force. "Either promise you won't try to come back uninvited, or we'll kill you." Or keep her prisoner, I suppose. I'd come back... at the head of a flight of bombers.

(oh, but the gulchers need not worry; we're all totally incompetent without their godly influence. I'm sure not a single bomb would land anywhere near the gulch).

But, something Dipsh... I mean David Kelly said made me laugh.

"(objectivism) means accepting facts as facts, whether you like them or not".

I LAUGH in your face, David Kelly. C'mere... no, wait a minute so I can eat some garlic first.... then I'll laugh in your face.

All the great things all the great men in history did... they did in the TEETH of "accepting facts as facts".

Thomas Edison found 10,000 ways how not to make a lightbulb. How'd that happen? Because he didn't accept facts as facts; he had FAITH that a way DID exist to make a lightbulb.
His emotion overrode his reason.

Reason tells us, "just do what you can do". Reason tells us, "some things are impossible". But the great things in history were not done by people who accepted limits.

There's a very inspiring song from "Wicked", where Elphaba sings, "I'm through accepting limits because someone says they're so. Some things I cannot change... *but til I try I'll never know*."

I know you rational godlings hate the very idea... but that's an assertion of... FAITH.

However David Kelly wants to put it, intellect is *dead* without emotion. it's a hard drive full of data, but no program to make something of it. The hard drive is full of ones and zeros... but imagination, the vision of what isn't but might be, turns those ones and zeros into an experience like no one has experienced before.

Reason and emotion are not only compatible, they are inseparable in human beings. But, these people don't want to be human beings. They want to be IBM machines.

Btw, please tell the producers and directors and actors and everybody else associated with this fucking moving to spend some time on a construction site.

Dagny makes an ass of herself when she claims, "I can build it in 3 months". Oh, she sounds very manly and cool, and watching all the boys look around confused (in spite of their own engineering experience) as she explains how she can build a railroad for them is very, very PC... But, she has no clue what she's going to use for MANPOWER. She has no clue where she's going to get the materials, such as... Rearden metal.
Only an inexperienced, egotistical ass would make such a proclamation on the basis of a few minutes of study. I know. I've done the same thing when I was young. But I'm no intellectual gulch-godling.

Give her a thousand men, maybe she could do it in 3 months. Give her three men, she probably couldn't do it in 3 years.

It's what I've been trying to get across to you people, but you've emotionally refused to believe what you don't want to believe. In order to accomplish these great things, you DO need manpower. They're going to need food and shelter, and someplace to be when they're not working. And, as their primary value lies in their back, they're not going to be intellectually-oriented philosophers. They're going to pollute your gulch with looters and moochers.

Think I'm pulling this out of my arse? Research a little history on the 'wild west'; the boom towns, the mining towns and cowtowns and oil towns. Same thing happened with them, that's why Tombstone, for example, eventually needed Wild Burp and his brothers.




SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWMmDhDlz9U


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  number6 4 years ago
    A very thoughtful, well thought out and well edited review of the "fucking moving".
    BTW: Not to burst your "babble", but, Edison did not "invent the light bulb". It is fairly obvious that facts are NOT your strong point.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lynda_Townsend 4 years ago
      Not to burst YOUR babble, number6, but nowhere in the above post did Hiraghm actually assert that Edison "invented" the light bulb. It wasn't asserted, nor was it even suggested. Hiraghm stated merely that Edison "found 10,000 ways how not to make a lightbulb." A historically accurate statement. And, "He had FAITH that a way DID exist to make a lightbulb." Whether the second statement is true or false, it doesn't claim that Edison "invented" the lightbulb.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  number6 4 years ago
        "he had FAITH that a way DID exist to make a lightbulb" ... I guess he had that faith because the light bulb was already invented?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lynda_Townsend 4 years ago
          That the lightbulb had already been invented has nothing to do with Edison's own faith that "a way DID exist to make a lightbulb" — there's no suggestion here that Edison had faith he was making a lightbulb for the first time in history before anyone had done so.

          Perhaps if you read the statement for its actual objective meaning — rather than some other meaning that you whimsically feel it ought to have — you'll understand it better.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 4 years ago
      "Edison did not "invent the light bulb""

      No, but I believe that is the popular quote.

      From National Treasure:
      "Ben Gates: [paraphrasing Thomas Edison, about invention of light bulb] I didn't fail, I found 2,000 ways how not to make a light bulb; I only need to find one way to make it work. "

      Edison invented the incandescent bulb. Nothing else is 'the light bulb'. Certainly not the crap they're forcing on us today.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  number6 4 years ago
        "Historians Robert Friedel and Paul Israel list 22 inventors of incandescent lamps prior to Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years ago
          You know what? That's fine.

          Even if I were to concede your revisionism...

          What made *them* think they could invent a light bulb?
          At their first failures, reason would have told them it couldn't be done.

          THAT is the point you're trying to deflect.

          The great things in history that have been done have only been done because people had *faith*, an irrational emotion.
          I think it was Heinlein who said to listen to all the experts when they tell you something can't be done. Then go ahead and do it.
          (psst... but that's not rational...)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 4 years ago
          And how many of their versions of the light bulb have we used for over a century?

          So, Edison was just screwing around in his lab for all those months (years?) knowing already how to make a lightbulb, is that your assertion?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by 4 years ago
    In a conflict between your head and your heart, listen to your head.

    Oh, really? Whatever happened to your happiness being the highest morality?

    Going back and fighting to save the railroad from Galt & co's predations will make Dagny happy.
    Her mind tells her the smart move is to stay in the gulch as Galt's whore. But her heart tells her that her happiness is intertwined with the family company built by the man whose memory is dear to her.

    The conflict isn't between loving Galt and loving the railroad...

    It's between loving John Galt and loving Nathanial Taggart.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by irrelevantcommentforpoint 4 years ago
      What about the most productive one in the entire tale: Rearden? In the book one can possibly imagine some remotely rational reason for Dagny to leave her lover, best friend, and staunch ally for someone who opposes all she believes in. At least in the book the looters have purposely destroyed her precious, invaluable bridge with a perverted, dastardly invention and finally showed her how she and Rearden might be hurting their cause by staying. AS3 says nothing but 'the bridge was destroyed by regulation.' In AS3 Dagny was portrayed as an irrational woman whose hormones have turned off her brain.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo