Jdcomments’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
I always found the Jungle a horribly boring book which has been shown to be factually inaccurate as well. Its absence from the list seems to me well justified.
It is a novel and not a great one but it did shed light on dreadful practices, leading to a change in the law.
As I mentioned it has been found to be factually inaccurate, but regardless doesn't deserve to be on a list of great fiction.
A fictional novel was fiction? Who would have thought it!?!?
LOL-No, a fictional novel supposedly based on facts was inaccurate- in addition to being boring and poorly written.
The quality of the writing I couldn't speak to, that's a individual taste sort of thing... but as to the conditions of the Meat Packing industry, the Neill-Reynolds Report of 1906 is pretty damning. The only people who seemed to think that this was false were either directly involved with the Meat Packing industry of the time (and stood to lose a lot of money if the conditions got out, and hilariously swore that having things like expiration dates would destroy their industry, which is obviously not the case: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid...), were directly paid by the Meat Packing industry (like Roosevelt, who swore that this socialist must be full of it, until his own commission produced the Neill-Reynolds Report, which completely changed his tune and directly lead to the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906), or radical libertarians, who cannot conceive of a corporation doing anything other than kissing puppies... So where do you get that meat packing plants in the early 1900's were hunky-dory? I noticed that you haven't backed up this claim with any sources, despite asserting it 3 times...
If you read the book in its entirety you should be able to make an informed judgement of its worthiness to be included in the best novels list, which is the original point. If you did not read the book then there really is nothing to be said about your comment.
However, for the sake of edification, I will provide two sources which refute the so-called muckraking exposes for which the book has become famous:
https://secure.downsizedc.org/blog/go...
http://www.mackinac.org/4084
If you do an internet search you will find many more.
Let me know if I can help you further.
Not sure where you got that I have never read 'The Jungle' from... but I did get that you fall into the 'radical libertarian' cohort, as evidenced by using not one, but two "sources" that are just Libertarian blogs. I will refrain from trying to use documented history to convince you of anything, as I can already tell where this is going... you stay away from those vaccinations now, and here's to hoping that fluoride doesn't rob you of your precious bodily fluids!
LOL0 First, I wondered if you had read it, since you do not seem able to decide on its quality as a novel.
As for the disparagement of the sources I provided, I love when Progressives dismiss things with a wave of their hand and a condescending label but never address the facts or arguments in any substantive way. All it does is emphasis their closemindedness and willful blindness.
And thanks for your concerns about my health ( though your preoccupation with my bodily fluids is a little creepy don't you think).
I find it interesting that you mention morality. I find nothing moral in this book. The main characters have an affair. What is moral about that? Why didn't he get a divorce and then hook up? That would have been the moral way. The main character refuses to help his brother because he feels he isn't worthy. That is not normal or moral. The family is a microcosm of society. Individuality is fine, but everyone lives in society, it cannot be avoided.
This book appeals to people who have a misunderstanding of history. This country was at it's greatest when we all worked together and took in the world's hungry and poor. We have decided to reject that and as we splinter now we will collapse. Only by coming together as a society will we succeed again.
Obviously you disagree with Rand's definition of morality. You are certainly entitled to your opinions.
Okay, Jdcomments, let me get this straight. According to your morality I don´t have the right to insist you pay your taxes.
You can demand what you want and in this case the law would support you.
The question is: is it moral to demand or take something from another without their assent? For Rand the answer is no- and thus she found statism the ultimate evil.
The conflict between legality and morality is at least as old as Socratic teaching- he refused to stop philosophizing (which for him meant studying morality) even though it meant his death.
Legal and moral can be two very different things.
She is popular only among those with a similar headset. And yes, those are people who list her books as number one because she espouses their foolishness best of all American writers.
LOL- what a perfectly useless comment- vacuous, prejudiced and banal. And in so few words!
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
I always found the Jungle a horribly boring book which has been shown to be factually inaccurate as well. Its absence from the list seems to me well justified.
It is a novel and not a great one but it did shed light on dreadful practices, leading to a change in the law.
As I mentioned it has been found to be factually inaccurate, but regardless doesn't deserve to be on a list of great fiction.
A fictional novel was fiction? Who would have thought it!?!?
LOL-No, a fictional novel supposedly based on facts was inaccurate- in addition to being boring and poorly written.
The quality of the writing I couldn't speak to, that's a individual taste sort of thing... but as to the conditions of the Meat Packing industry, the Neill-Reynolds Report of 1906 is pretty damning. The only people who seemed to think that this was false were either directly involved with the Meat Packing industry of the time (and stood to lose a lot of money if the conditions got out, and hilariously swore that having things like expiration dates would destroy their industry, which is obviously not the case: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid...), were directly paid by the Meat Packing industry (like Roosevelt, who swore that this socialist must be full of it, until his own commission produced the Neill-Reynolds Report, which completely changed his tune and directly lead to the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906), or radical libertarians, who cannot conceive of a corporation doing anything other than kissing puppies... So where do you get that meat packing plants in the early 1900's were hunky-dory? I noticed that you haven't backed up this claim with any sources, despite asserting it 3 times...
If you read the book in its entirety you should be able to make an informed judgement of its worthiness to be included in the best novels list, which is the original point. If you did not read the book then there really is nothing to be said about your comment.However, for the sake of edification, I will provide two sources which refute the so-called muckraking exposes for which the book has become famous:
https://secure.downsizedc.org/blog/go...
http://www.mackinac.org/4084
If you do an internet search you will find many more.
Let me know if I can help you further.
Not sure where you got that I have never read 'The Jungle' from... but I did get that you fall into the 'radical libertarian' cohort, as evidenced by using not one, but two "sources" that are just Libertarian blogs. I will refrain from trying to use documented history to convince you of anything, as I can already tell where this is going... you stay away from those vaccinations now, and here's to hoping that fluoride doesn't rob you of your precious bodily fluids!
LOL0 First, I wondered if you had read it, since you do not seem able to decide on its quality as a novel.As for the disparagement of the sources I provided, I love when Progressives dismiss things with a wave of their hand and a condescending label but never address the facts or arguments in any substantive way. All it does is emphasis their closemindedness and willful blindness.
And thanks for your concerns about my health ( though your preoccupation with my bodily fluids is a little creepy don't you think).
I find it interesting that you mention morality. I find nothing moral in this book. The main characters have an affair. What is moral about that? Why didn't he get a divorce and then hook up? That would have been the moral way. The main character refuses to help his brother because he feels he isn't worthy. That is not normal or moral. The family is a microcosm of society. Individuality is fine, but everyone lives in society, it cannot be avoided. This book appeals to people who have a misunderstanding of history. This country was at it's greatest when we all worked together and took in the world's hungry and poor. We have decided to reject that and as we splinter now we will collapse. Only by coming together as a society will we succeed again.
Obviously you disagree with Rand's definition of morality. You are certainly entitled to your opinions.
Okay, Jdcomments, let me get this straight. According to your morality I don´t have the right to insist you pay your taxes.
You can demand what you want and in this case the law would support you.The question is: is it moral to demand or take something from another without their assent? For Rand the answer is no- and thus she found statism the ultimate evil.
The conflict between legality and morality is at least as old as Socratic teaching- he refused to stop philosophizing (which for him meant studying morality) even though it meant his death.
Legal and moral can be two very different things.
She is popular only among those with a similar headset. And yes, those are people who list her books as number one because she espouses their foolishness best of all American writers.
LOL- what a perfectly useless comment- vacuous, prejudiced and banal. And in so few words!
It's sad that Tom Paine appears in neither, considering the influence of "Common Sense" in the American Revolution. I was in the Lexington Information Centre a couple of years ago and the man in charge had never heard of him.
Another surprising omission (from the fiction lists) is Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle".