The Myth of Compromise

[ALPHA.]

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil."

- Ayn Rand

[cbeast]

Written like a true sociopath.

[ribuck]

Written like a true sociopath.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

[Hawker]

Written like a true sociopath.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

Its a false choice.  Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous.  Of course that is not true.  I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off.

[ALPHA.]

Written like a true sociopath.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

Its a false choice.  Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous.  Of course that is not true.  I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off.

She did not argue that all. She only argued the compromise based on principles and values leads to disaster.

[Hawker]

Written like a true sociopath.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

Its a false choice.  Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous.  Of course that is not true.  I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off.

She did not argue that all. She only argued the compromise based on principles and morals leads to disaster.

Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster.

Cheerful soul wasn't she.  It must have been the years of living off Social Security that made her bitter.

[cbeast]

Written like a true sociopath.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

That's a sophomoric fallacy. From Wikipedia "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)."

[ALPHA.]

Written like a true sociopath.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

That's a sophomoric fallacy. From Wikipedia "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)."

There are no shades of grey between solving a situation with theft and solving it without theft at all. To go in the middle results in somebody having their value stolen. There will be violence if one end gets their way. This is about compromises dealing with values and principles. They simple do not exist.

[ALPHA.]

Written like a true sociopath.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

Its a false choice.  Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous.  Of course that is not true.  I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off.

She did not argue that all. She only argued the compromise based on principles and morals leads to disaster.

Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster.

How so?

[cbeast]

Written like a true sociopath.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

That's a sophomoric fallacy. From Wikipedia "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)."

There are no shades of grey between solving a situation with theft and not solving with theft at all. To go in the middle results in somebody having their value stolen. This is about compromises dealing with values and principles. They simple do not exist.

Don't tell that to insurance companies. Auto theft insurance will disappear.

[RodeoX]

Written like a true sociopath.

Hahaha That made me laugh. cbeast, you may be my favorite bit-comic.

[Hawker]

Written like a true sociopath.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

Its a false choice.  Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous.  Of course that is not true.  I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off.

She did not argue that all. She only argued the compromise based on principles and morals leads to disaster.

Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster.

How so?

If you are on land that you believe you own and someone else believes is rightfully theirs, the choices are compromise (go to court) or violence (get a gun).

[ALPHA.]

Written like a true sociopath.

So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison?

Its a false choice.  Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous.  Of course that is not true.  I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off.

She did not argue that all. She only argued the compromise based on principles and morals leads to disaster.

Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster.

How so?

If you are on land that you believe you own and someone else believes is rightfully theirs, the choices are compromise (go to court) or violence (get a gun).

What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.

[cbeast]

from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all.

[ALPHA.]

from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all.

Ad hominem.

Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned, that would of been better spent in a savings account.

[Hawker]

...snip...

What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.

Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy.

How immature are you?  Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long.  The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence.

[cbeast]

from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all.

Ad hominem.

Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned that would of been better spent in a savings account.

Calling a psychopathic killer a "Superman" is sociopathic. I don't see how that can be construed as ad hominem. Ayn Rand accepting public assistance because "she paid into it" makes her a hypocrite for saying things like "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes."

[ALPHA.]

...snip...

What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.

Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy.

How immature are you?  Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long.  The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence.

All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief won.

If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land.

[ALPHA.]

from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all.

Ad hominem.

Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned that would of been better spent in a savings account.

Calling a psychopathic killer a "Superman" is sociopathic. I don't see how that can be construed as ad hominem. Ayn Rand accepting public assistance because "she paid into it" makes her a hypocrite for saying things like "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes."

No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.

She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.

Also:

https://i.imgur.com/woUgZ.jpg

[cbeast]

No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.

She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.

Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol