Decorative sex objects

[Dragonfly]

This reminds me of Rand's quip:

Denouncing masculine oppression, Women's Lib screams protests against the policy of regarding women as "sex objects"—through speakers who, too obviously, are in no such danger.

[9thdoctor]

Looks like Dragonfly has discovered http://www.demotivateus.com/

Here's another one in the same spirit:

[tjohnson]

Collectivism, only fanatical individualists complain about it. (Remember, this is the humour section!)

[Jonathan]

I think my favorite demotivator-type line is, "Sure, there's no 'I' in 'team,' but there's a 'U' in 'suck.'"

[Charles R. Anderson]

Collectivism, only fanatical individualists complain about it. (Remember, this is the humour section!)

Collectivism assumes individuality does not exist. Without individuality, the individual does not exist. The collective is then the sum of that which does not exist.

[Max Eichelberger]

Look at Palin; she's hot, sexy, the highest definition of a woman who is working her ass off at empowering other women. Certainly, there's pages (e.g. her book) of stuff I don't see eye-to-eye with her on. Yet, even still, I can realize that what she is doing for women. Telling them they can still be, in essence, very womanly and still be taken seriously.

Look at Clinton; she's ugly, masculine, and tells women with every ounce of her existence that the only way you can be taken seriously is if you give up every bit of woman in you.

Now, who's supposed to be the "Women's Rights Activist?"

Yeah, if this Leftist world view isn't destined for the Humor section; nothing is.

[syrakusos]

Collectivism, only fanatical individualists complain about it. (Remember, this is the humour section!)

... then there was the woman who said that she was a solipsist and was puzzled that she never met anyone else who was...

But, not to drift too far ...

... and right on target ...

[Reidy]

The line in #1 was years old (but timelessly true) when Rand used it nearly 40 years ago.

[Jerry Biggers]

Collectivism, only fanatical individualists complain about it. (Remember, this is the humour section!)

Collectivism assumes individuality does not exist. Without individuality, the individual does not exist. The collective is then the sum of that which does not exist.

Thanks! I'll use that line at the next opportunity!

[Jerry Biggers]

Looks like Dragonfly has discovered http://www.demotivateus.com/

Here's another one in the same spirit:

So, is this why Leonard devoted his podcast to discussing pre-mature ejaculation??

[Xray]

[quote name='Charles R. Anderson' date='06 December 2009 - 10:26 PM'

Collectivism assumes individuality does not exist. Without individuality, the individual does not exist. The collective is then the sum of that which does not exist.

But where is the individualism in "life proper to man"? Don't all collectivist ideologies advocate the very same thing - 'life proper to man', presenting their 'one set for all' catalog of "cardinal values" everyone must follow in order "to live"?

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme ruling values of his life:

"Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem". (John Galt)

From Galt's words it can be inferred that those who don't hold those three things as the supreme ruling values of their lives "don't live", i. e. don't live "proper to man".

Edited December 12, 2009 by Xray