About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 4:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Outstanding, Richard.

Post 1

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 4:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very well done. It's terrible that I can't tell what is and is not fiction anymore.


Post 2

Monday, June 1, 2009 - 8:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great, Richard! Enjoyed it.

jt

Post 3

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - 5:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very nice! Yes, true, hard to tell if it's a parable or not.

Post 4

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - 5:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Richard,

An excellent portrayal.

Ed


Post 5

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great parable, Richard, and very well told.  There's a lot of power and punch presented in a compact story.  One thing not mentioned is that the extravagant dinner stolen bit by bit from the guest....was also paid for by the guest and other taxpayers who weren't even invited! 

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 - 8:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Channeling Rorschach:

The only problem with the story is it tells the truth.  You ever tried to sell truth?  True... some people will buy it, if it ain't somethin they already know and don't want to.

Lies, on the other hand, can command quite the price, as the religions and the lunatic brands of states proven every time.  The key thing Richard IDed is used by evil men to turn their victims into their allies.  The scapegoat that no one really likes will be the first victim. 

A Jew, maybe, or perhaps some guy who enjoys looking at cartoons of kids having sex.  That Florida case - a guy convicted of kiddie porn, even though the pictures were cartoons of furry animals, and involved no actual children...

The Federal Appelate Court could've thrown the case out on the grounds that previous, similar cases had already made it to the Appelate - and I believe the Supreme Court - and were thrown out on grounds of the unconstitutionality of the statute.  They could've come down hard on the side of free speech, regardless...  Instead, they upheld a conviction with a two decade sentence for liking a smutty cartoon. 

Now we have a thought crime on the books. 

What do you think?  (Don't - or else.)

Not that the amount of time is relevant.  But the nasty little fact that we, the American public, did not blink, probably didn't notice, and probably thought, "Oh, well.  As long as it's just those nasty pedophiles (Muslims, Jews, Gypsies, capitalists...)," now THAT means somethin.

Like the NAZI guards who had to prove their loyalty to Der Fuhrer by going out of their way to be a little and then a lot more cruel than required, so, once you don't speak up, then you either gotta deal with guilt, or pretend and go along, and prove to yourself it's ok.  Hey, those Jews are all a bunch of lousy cheats and money grubbers, anyway.  And, then everyone becomes determined to prove that it can't be wrong because we're all in it together. 

What?!  YOU aren't in the gang?  What's wrong wit ya, buddy?  You ain't one of them (Jews, capitalists, sexy cartoon fans...), are ya?

And then it becomes a habit.  You back down once, then, the next time, you got less moral capital.  Who am I, after all.  I can't fight the damn system.  Who do you think you are?  You think you're better than me?  I'll show you, you sonovabitch!  Let's get the cartoon man (Fag, Arab, whatever)!
 
Me, I'm spending this Saturday at Califur, just so the feds and the other creeps know where to find me, ready or not...
  http://www.califur.com/

See ya there.  Unless you're too scared...


Post 7

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - 4:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Instead, they upheld a conviction with a two decade sentence for liking a smutty cartoon.

Now we have a thought crime on the books.

What do you think? (Don't - or else.)

Not that the amount of time is relevant. But the nasty little fact that we, the American public, did not blink, probably didn't notice, and probably thought, "Oh, well. As long as it's just those nasty pedophiles (Muslims, Jews, Gypsies, capitalists...)," now THAT means somethin."


Curious about the use of the collectivist "we" here ... I am not part of the federal government, nor are most dedicated Objectivists, or individualists in general. Service to such an oppressively collectivist organization should induce severe cognitive dissonance in anyone who values individual liberty.

I think a more accurate phrasing of the second sentence above might be, "Now we the federal government have a has yet another thought crime on the books."



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Have you repudiated your citizenship, Jim? It's a government of, by and for the people. Not a monarchy imposed from without, but a res publica. You vote. You pay your taxes. You are neither emigrating nor rebelling. To paraphrase the hippies, "you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem," your pronominal fastidious notwithstanding.

Post 9

Sunday, November 15, 2009 - 2:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow- this post has actually been seen by thousands if not a million people now- it went viral and has become a spam e-mail. It's all over the web with different titles: Dinner with Obama, The Dinner Roll Parable etc. Unfortunately, it's been posted as author unknown or anonymous and in some cases some unscrupulous folks have tried to pass it off as their own.

Anyways- it is very interesting to see this out of all my little pieces become a viral thing. It's kind of cool and kind of flattering.

Post 10

Monday, November 16, 2009 - 8:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good for you, Richard!

I showed this piece to a liberal friend and he tried to express defensive disgust. It touched a chord with him and he didn't want to talk about it.

A lot of liberals cannot put their junk-heap of conflicting emotional judgments into words -- so I didn't press the issue with him any more than that.

Ed


Post 11

Monday, November 16, 2009 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, it's not all good, Ed.  Some idiot is trying to claim this piece, even though Richard's time stamp here and on Facebook is clearly much earlier. Another individual made a YouTube video of the story.


Post 12

Monday, November 16, 2009 - 3:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good point, Teresa.

If only violence were legal (so we could hunt them down and break out a can of old-fashioned whoop-ass; the friggin' value-leeches).

:-)

Ed


Post 13

Monday, November 16, 2009 - 3:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Richard got a kick out of the video, but he would appreciate some credit!


Post 14

Monday, November 16, 2009 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Isn't Richard the same person infringing on the John Galt speech copyright?

In any case, can't he file a copyright complaint to YouTube himself?

Post 15

Monday, November 16, 2009 - 5:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, if you are willing to pay the price, you can always engage in violence.

Post 16

Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 3:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Isn't Richard the same person infringing on the John Galt speech copyright?

Kill-joy,

At least he gives Rand the credit.  Even grumpy old Binswanger enjoys those videos.  No comment from Peikoff, but I think it's safe to assume he approves of them.


Post 17

Friday, March 4, 2011 - 5:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"if you are willing to pay the price, you can always engage in violence"
>>>>>>>
IIRC, these were the approximate words that were bandied about back in the early and mid '70's.

No, no, not the NINETEEN seventies, I'm referring to the SEVENTEEN seventies...

(Just how far do things need to go before such talk resurfaces on a wider scale?)

(Edited by John Rutledge on 3/04, 11:30am)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.