"The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial." - Ayn Rand

Posted by GaltsGulch 3 years, 4 months ago to The Gulch: General
14 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

"The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial." - Ayn Rand

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 years, 4 months ago
    Americans used to be able to disagree and engage in debate based on principles and the facts at hand, but no more. That America has been steadily eroded since the time of Woodrow Wilson, thanks to his chief propagandist, Edward Bernays, an expert on crowd manipulation lauded by Joseph Goebbels.

    The latest Wikileaks email dump from Podesta reveals an admission that the goal of the Democrat party has been to create an uninformed and compliant voter population. How sadly true this statement is becomes graphically apparent when Hillary is caught garbling her speech to say " . . . and we're going to raise taxes on the middle class!" the crowd behind her went wild with approval, apparently oblivious to anything she was saying. I think she could have said "free cheeseburger and flies" and gotten the same response.

    The blindly compliant crowds see nothing wrong with censorship of any speech that does not obey the diktat of the party. When they can't get a corrupt, activist judiciary to enforce the censorship, they create a new category of offense using the limitlessly malleable cover of political correctness, as in "microaggression," "cultural appropriation," and the cry of "racist," which now means whatever the accuser wants it to mean. Public shaming, social media death threats, and physical violence are the final battery of tools to suppress oppositional speech.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by one4Rush 3 years, 4 months ago
    If the statements, accusations, charges, and Etc against Hillaliar are all false?
    How come I do not see any slander or defamation of character lawsuits being filed?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 3 years, 4 months ago
      Defame private citizen me for a traitor and I can sue you.
      Call a public figure like Jane Fonda a traitor and that traitor just has to take that. (Tee-hee).
      Call that traitor O the Great and Powerful a traitor and you may receive an IRS audit unless you do that with a moniker. .
      Who me? What's an allosaur?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 3 years, 4 months ago
      It is difficult for a public figure in America to sue on those grounds. As for her "lying" allow me to assume that you have a Kantian (deontological) view of honesty. Objectivism suggests a deeper understanding, both of the reality of lying, and also its moral use.

      Lying was a conceptual invention, unknown to primitives, perhaps a direct consequence of the invention of writing, which allowed people to engage themselves, and discover their own minds.

      Moreover, deception is in point of fact in and of nature. We all know that animals and even plants disguise themselves and give false signals for self-preservation.

      Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics demanded that if a man were being pursued by a killer, and the man hid in your shrubbery, and you knew it, and the killer asked you where the man is, you would be morally bound to reveal him. That, as I recall, was Kant's own example.

      Finally, as you seem to be aware of Ms. Clinton's lies, they apparently are ineffective. Is it because she is a poor liar, or because you are especially perceptive?

      "How and Why We Lie at Work" from the Harvard Business Review:
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 3 years, 4 months ago
        The best lies are mixtures of truths and half-truths. Outright lies - which Clinton relies on heavily - are too easily debunked. Justification in many cases is a lie because it attempts to mix in a half-truth with another truth to make the half-truth seem more palatable. The problem is that they, too, must be judiciously used or the liar themselves will acquire an air of dishonesty which is impossible to dispel.

        People want to believe that others are telling them the truth. It's how the human race is wired. It is the open deception (usually with the intent to profit in some way at the expense of the other) and the resulting betrayal which causes all the pain - and the resulting bad feelings, etc.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 3 years, 4 months ago
    It is more than the right to disagree, it is the right to act when those actions do not hurt others. If you want to use fiat currency or have 'free' health care I don't care as long as I can disagree by not participating with either. If I can't do that then the right of the majority to use violence to force me to comply indicates I am a slave with the right to complain.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by ewv 3 years, 4 months ago
      Have you noticed that those employing the common evasion "We'll have to agree to disagree" are typically those who continue to force their "disagreement" down your throat while demanding that you agree to shut up and not protest it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 4 months ago
    I couldn't agree more.
    The corollary is the right to say NO.
    One of the worst phrases to come out of the 20th century is to "go along in order to get along."
    Think about it. Evaluate it. Come to a decision regardless of what anyone else may think. However, this does not mean that you cannot hear an opposing view. Never get so concretized that your mind can never be changed when presented with new facts or things you haven't considered.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo