Atlas Shrugged Atlas Shrugged discussion


86 views
Objectivism = Psychological Warfare

Comments Showing 1-50 of 67 (67 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Monty J (last edited Aug 10, 2015 04:12PM) (new) - added it

Monty J Heying "When people lose faith in their ideals, they are defeated before they begin to fight." --Screenwriter Aeneas McKenzie (discussing the film, Casablanca)

Rand's toxic philosophy of Objectivism, promoted in Atlas Shrugged, undermines faith in the ideals upon which democracy is founded.

The political partisanship that has grown like cancer in America can be attributed to Rand's toxic Objectivist philosophy. Alan Greenspan, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and Paul Ryan are among the infected political figures. Libertarianism is based on Objectivism.

Rand worshiper Greenspan sat on his hands while the sub-prime mortgage disaster grew and grew, eventually causing trillions in economic destruction.

Where did Rand come from? Russia, during the time of Lenin and Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov is known for making dogs salivate by ringing a bell, discovering the conditioned response. For 30 years Pavlov was in charge of Russia's Military Medicine department, I suspect he did much more than make dogs salivate.

Rand's Objectivism is psychological warfare, a mental toxin destructive to democracy. Chocolate-covered cyanide.

And it's working.


Liam Shope I'm sorry, what is your proof? Where are the examples? Besides the one concerning Greenspan, which can't be directly attributed to Rand's philosophy, you had none. Your argument went from just saying bad things about Rand, with no given reason, to talking about Pavlov. What's the connection? Your argument was unfocused without any base except for accusations.


message 3: by Monty J (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Liam wrote: "I'm sorry, what is your proof? Where are the examples? Besides the one concerning Greenspan, which can't be directly attributed to Rand's philosophy, you had none. Your argument went from just sayi..."

There is no proof. It's a circumstantial argument. Either it makes sense to you or it doesn't. Take it or leave it.


Liam Shope Sorry, maybe what I said was unclear, but what I meant to say was that you claim Rand's philosophy is 'toxin' to democracy. How? You didn't give any reason as to why you felt this way, except for the fact that you feel this way, which is not an explanation, just a repeat of opinion. So, let me rephrase; what's your reasoning?


message 5: by E.D. (last edited Aug 10, 2015 01:16PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

E.D. Lynnellen One can say the response to the "accusations" of defense and dismissal *are* the connection between them (Rand and Pavlov). As illustration.

Taking the long road, admittedly, but enjoying the scenery. :}


message 6: by Monty J (last edited Aug 10, 2015 01:41PM) (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Liam wrote: "Sorry, maybe what I said was unclear, but what I meant to say was that you claim Rand's philosophy is 'toxin' to democracy. How? You didn't give any reason as to why you felt this way, except for t..."


E.g., "promote the general welfare" and "ensure domestic tranquility' are stated in the Preamble and the Bill of Rights protects religion, the prevailing form at the time being Christianity, which embraces altruism. The Civil War and the Civil Rights Act solidified and sanctioned equality under the principle that all are equal under the law.

Rand denounced equality, altruism and religion and attacked government and taxation as unjustifiable threats to individual freedom.

I don't have a dissertation prepared, but further details appear in my blog: https://www.wattpad.com/story/1900376...


Liam Shope Rand denounced equality, not because she didn't think people were not born equal, she did think everyone was born equal. What she didn't like was that since everyone was born equal came the idea that you couldn't rise above and become better than others and the popular idea that being successful when others fail is bad. That's not OK.

She hated altruism for the same reason I do. In an altruistic society you lose your identity. If everyone is working to the same goal you have no room for personal goals. And your supposed to put everyone's happiness before your own, which will eventually leave you drained and depressed.

She hated religion for the same reason Camus and
Nietzsche did, she thought it was slavery and that there is no reason to be punished for being rich and successful, when you haven't done anything to hurt anyone. She didn't like religion because most religions talk down to Man and tell him he is dirty and evil and makes him feel weak and guilty for things he hasn't done, so he feels compelled to worship.


message 8: by E.D. (last edited Aug 16, 2015 10:25PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

E.D. Lynnellen Finding a balance between looking out for oneself and looking out for others isn't sacrificing oneself to the collective. It's not being a prick.

I've asked before and I'll ask again,.....does Rand replace God with Reason and then The Divine Right of Kings with The Divine Right of Plutocrats?

Dirty and evil. Moocher and taker. Compelled to worship, indeed. :}


message 9: by Monty J (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Liam wrote: "If everyone is working to the same goal you have no room for personal goals. And your supposed to put everyone's happiness before your own, which will eventually leave you drained and depressed."

It's a matter of balance. Good judgment is required of any principle Nothing in altruism says people are to be co-dependent.

With religion the same principle of good judgment applies. There are many religions. There's no question that some are repressive and have been used to exploit the masses, especially by politicians, just as there are governments who do this.

But an intelligent person knows to strike a productive balance where the benefits outweigh the risk. Belief in a higher power can enable the human spirit to transcend and overcome unconscionable loss and trauma. Anyone who does not understand this has not been tested.


message 10: by Monty J (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Liam wrote: "Rand denounced equality, not because she didn't think people were not born equal, ..."

Her racist views on "negros" to the contrary.


message 11: by E.D. (new) - rated it 2 stars

E.D. Lynnellen Let us not forget "Arab savages".


message 12: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope E.D. wrote: "Finding a balance between looking out for oneself and looking out for others isn't sacrificing oneself to the collective. It's not being a prick.

I've asked before and I'll ask again,.....does Ran..."

You ask if she replaces the Divine Rights of Kings with the Divine Rights of Plutocrats, which with out extra reading of her works would seem to be the case, but its not. She doesn't believe that money should give you power over others, unless you are directly paying them to do something. She believes its anyone's right to rise and become rich and that if someone becomes rich and you don't, its not their fault. She didn't think being rich should make untouchable and give you more freedom, she just thought that you shouldn't be hated and punished for it.


message 13: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope Monty J wrote: "Liam wrote: "Rand denounced equality, not because she didn't think people were not born equal, ..."

Her racist views on "negros" to the contrary."


For real, she wasn't racist. She thought that being racist was " The lowest and most idiotic form of altruism." She really hated altruism so it stands to reason that she wouldn't be racist.


message 14: by Liam (last edited Aug 10, 2015 03:53PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope E.D. wrote: "Let us not forget "Arab savages"."

You took that way out of context, when she said that she was saying it in the defense of Isreal, because it was being threatend. Check out the video " Ayn Rand on the middle east" you will also see that she doesn't like racist people. She believed people should be judged by their character, not by their genetic heritage.


message 15: by E.D. (new) - rated it 2 stars

E.D. Lynnellen Ah..., a tiny peek behind the curtain rattles the cathedral's foundation. :}


message 16: by Ken (last edited Aug 10, 2015 04:07PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ken Okay, so Monty's opening salvos were extremely subjective, personal opinions.

That said, I think he's right about the link between political libertarianism in America and Objectivist views. (I deign not to honor it by calling it philosophy, that would be too sweet an upgrade for such stuff). Rand's views are the apex evolution of capitalism: one profits on one's merits - inevitably at the expense of one's peers. If you're that person, it sounds like a great way to apologize to all the people you stepped on to get where you are, and hand-wave away your guilt.

Rand's beliefs are antithesis to democratic participation, unsustainable in a group society, inapplicable to successful government, and detrimental to true personal belief.

I find Between Equal Rights: A Marxist Theory of International Law to be a great refute to Rand (and other theories of international law) even if you're not into Marxism.


message 17: by Monty J (last edited Aug 10, 2015 04:22PM) (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Liam wrote: "For real, she wasn't racist. She..."


She speaks out against racism, but with a racist, bigoted, white supremacist view in a speech per Wikiquote: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ay...

Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.

Her denial of rights to Native Americans is putting herself, and White Society in general, above them, which is racist. She redefines racism to suit her self-interest.

Her phrase "doesn't know what to do with it" implies that the conquering whites were superior and whose white opinions rightly defined "what to do with it"--that the whites might even be entitled to genocidally infect the natives with smallpox-laden blankets.

We can't have it both ways. We can't in one breath say we believe in property rights and in the other deny those rights to people of a certain race who by occupying territory for millennia and shedding blood to defend it from trespassers thereby own that territory.

Her speech reeks of racism while hurling the term at those who disagree with her. Classic verbal bulling tactics of Anyn Rand.


message 18: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope Oh, that one thing she said that one time automatically discredits every other thing she said concerning that one subject, that wasn't even her main subject of her debate and interest. If you listen to her interviews and read her writing you'll clearly see she wasn't racist. I once said that I thought dogs couldn't look up,that was wrong, but that didn't discredit everything I ever said about dogs.


message 19: by Monty J (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Liam wrote: "Oh, that one thing she said that one time automatically discredits every other thing she said concerning that one subject, that wasn't even her main subject of her debate and interest. If you liste..."

Sometimes once is all it takes to lift the curtain on true feelings. Donald Trump knows what that's like.

But equating Native Americans to dogs... ? You may want to choose a different analogy.


message 20: by Liam (last edited Aug 10, 2015 07:47PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope Nope. You made the wrong connection, the dog thing was representing that if someone's wrong about something once, then people will generalize them as always being wrong. I think you misunderstood what I said. Just like you did with Ayn Rand.


message 21: by E.D. (new) - rated it 2 stars

E.D. Lynnellen Peek-a-boo. I see...... :}


message 22: by Monty J (last edited Aug 11, 2015 09:39AM) (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Casablanca was about World War II and what happens when aggression is appeased in the name of peace and people lose faith in their ideals.

Rick Blaine lost faith in his ideals; then a beautiful woman reminded him. This is the story in Casablanca.

Every generation needs to be reminded of the importance of their ideals, lest they be eroded, as is happening with the toxic tripe of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

Randism is at the root of hyper-partisanship epitomized by Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and the erosion of ideals like the protections of Social Security and Medicare. Like fair taxation and healthy fiscal policy.


message 23: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't aggression, people love to claim that it is, but what do you consider aggression? Do you consider it to be aggressive when someone doesn't give you a hand out, cause that seems to be the common theme with critics of Rand. What I consider aggressive is if a man earns his own money and people whine and complain to the government about it, so then the government comes in and uses FORCE to get their money so they can give it to people who didn't earn it. That's aggressive, to me. And I think it can sometimes be healthy for people to lose other generations ideals, its not like a new generation proclaimed those to be its ideals, it was forced on to them by the generation before them. The new generation isn't a copy of the one before it, it a NEW generation and it should be allowed to make its own ideals. That's the fallacy of 'tradition' it forces one people's opinions on to another. 'Fair tax' is not fair. How is it fair to take from someone who has earned something and give it to someone who has not? Simple, it isn't. The only kind of tax that comes close to being 'fair' is a flat tax, cause everyone pays the same percentage.


message 24: by Ken (last edited Aug 11, 2015 01:17PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Ken Liam, you're doing a great job of picking and choosing selectively from the Rand buffet. It is reinforcing the opposition.

Your last post is interesting though.

A flat tax on all citizens sounds suspiciously socialist. And when I say 'socialist' I am not implying an insult.

You ask how higher taxes on higher earners is fair. You need to ask instead, "how am I defining what is fair, and what beliefs drive me to that conclusion?" You erroneously equate the antithesis of Objectivism as Welfare, except even further awry, as these things are very different forces. and this is simply not true. It is an argument akin to "It isn't conservative, so it's liberal!" as if these things exist on a one dimensional line.

Right now, you're doing a great job of holding up your own 'tradition'.


message 25: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope Kenneth wrote: "Liam, you're doing a great job of picking and choosing selectively from the Rand buffet. It is reinforcing the opposition.

Your last post is interesting though.

A flat tax on all citizens sounds ..."

I am defining what is fair by observing the fact that higher taxes on higher earners is punishing them. If you make a pie all by yourself, no one else helped, then why should you have to give a part of that by to someone who did nothing to help make it? Kinda makes you wish you hadn't made a pie in the first place. And the belief that drives me to this conclusion is that I trust, I believe that I am a smart individual capable of finding truth and reasonable thought, I refuse to roll over and say " How can I know the truth?"


message 26: by Monty J (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Liam wrote: "If you make a pie all by yourself, no one else helped, then why should you have to give a part of that by to someone who did nothing to help make it."

Your argument is founded, like Rand's over-simplistic fantasies, on fallacy.

Unless you live alone in the forest, in which case you can't make pipe anyway, we live in a society of other human beings. (Notice the operative word, "we.") We depend upon one another for a myriad of goods, services, security and trust.

The materials that go into making a pipe bear the labor capital of whose who rendered it and the financial capital of investors who financed the plant and equipment. That labor had to be educated and the capital had to be protected from invaders and interlopers, foreign and domestic. Roads and airports had to be built and maintained to transport the materials for the pipe and the workers to transport to and from.

A democratic society is founded on a bedrock of trust, trust that people will be treated equally and fairly. Why should I don a military uniform and risk my life to protect some wealthy prick who thinks he shouldn't pay a fair share of taxes because he inherited a ton of money?

Randism drives a wedge between the wealthy and wage earners. We were doing fine before Randism began to infect society.


message 27: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope All those people, who paved the roads, made the factories, and produced the ingredients have been PAID TO DO IT. They didn't do it so you could make the pie, they did it so they could get money and then you paid for the stuff to make it, no one else did. They already benefit, because you exchanged value for value. Everyone in that equation acted selfishly, so they could get money, they benefit from it. There doesn't have to be a brotherhood of humanity, not whenever everyone is acting selfishly in that way. Sure, you need others to make the pie, but their already getting something out of it.


message 28: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope There for, you don't owe anybody anything and no one owes you anything, everyone was compensated.


message 29: by E.D. (new) - rated it 2 stars

E.D. Lynnellen But wait! There's more! :}


message 30: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope E.D. wrote: "But wait! There's more! :}"

Sorry that I'm trying to make a point and actually contributing to the conversation, instead of making convoluted remarks and just saying random stuff. My bad. :}


message 31: by E.D. (new) - rated it 2 stars

E.D. Lynnellen I thought I made a pithy allusion to the Randian sales pitch you were working. You know..., the magic market invisible fingers mojo.

But, please. Continue. :}


message 32: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope You proud of that. You proud of what you just said.


message 33: by E.D. (new) - rated it 2 stars

E.D. Lynnellen Not comfortable outside the Dogma Box, are you?

I'll play. Who paid the pavers?


message 34: by Monty J (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Liam wrote: "There for, you don't owe anybody anything and no one owes you anything, everyone was compensated."

This is my response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8c...


message 35: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope People who wanted a road built. Doesn't matter who, what matters, what my point was that they acted selfishly, to gain something for themselves, they got compensated for their labor, so you don't owe them any of your pie.


message 36: by Monty J (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Liam wrote: "People who wanted a road built. Doesn't matter who, what matters, what my point was that they acted selfishly, to gain something for themselves, they got compensated for their labor, so you don't o..."

The tax laws decide how much of our pie we get to keep, and the tax laws are passed by people we elect. Nothing new or wrong with rational self-interest per-se.

What's wrong is undermining basic principles like religion and equality with toxic dogma.


message 37: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope Equality, fine. Me, you, and Rand all three support equality, the only difference is you, like most critics of Rand, don't like the idea that people can't rise above and be better than you, that they can't have more than you, that they can reach higher then the average man and be proud of there wealth. Religion? Religion is undermining to humans. Like we need permission to live, like we can't do anything without help from whatever god you believe in, that everything you do, every word you say, every thought you have is constantly being monitored by a higher power, a power that cares who you sleep with, a power that cares how you sleep with someone, a power that cares when and how you worship, sounds like Big Brother to me. In the Bible it says that a camel is more likely to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Thats disgusting. You know what I hear whenever I hear a sermon for any religion? Give up, give up, give up!


message 38: by Monty J (last edited Aug 12, 2015 01:20PM) (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Liam wrote: "you, like most critics of Rand, don't like the idea that people can't rise above and be better than you"

A--you could not be more wrong, and B--you've contradicted a principle of Objectivism, Individual freedom. I am free to think as I please, free, if it pleases me, to reject Obectivism, all or any part I choose.

Rand denigrates people who don't fall in line with her dogma, which is a repudiation of her own principle of rational self-interest. If people are free to do as they please, why do they have to submit to Randist thought control?


The major problem I have is with the word, "better," which reeks of arrogance and elitism and is fascist in implication.

No one is "better" than anyone else. Different, of course, but not better. Who put you in judgement of others that you deem yourself "better?" By what measure do you make that arrogant declaration? Economic worth? Family tree?

You can't profess to believe in equality while declaring one class of people "better."

Like we need permission to live, like we can't do anything without help from whatever god you believe in, that everything you do,

Good grief, this is just the way I thought 30 years ago. You haven't been tested. Let's talk again in a few years.

You're taking a narrow view and fallaciously extrapolating it as universal. Each person defines for him/herself their higher power (or absence thereof) according to spiritual need, and no one has authority to judge someone else's definition.


message 39: by E.D. (last edited Aug 12, 2015 10:01AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

E.D. Lynnellen Does matter. In fact, it's the very *point* of the matter.

"...better than you...."

Peek-a-boo. :}


message 40: by Petergiaquinta (new)

Petergiaquinta Wait, let's go back to this pavement/pie discussion...so the road crew that built the highway for you to drive on to go to the apple orchard got paid once to build it, as you point out. But you keep driving on that highway, every time you go to buy your stinking apples, and you aren't paying each time you drive on the highway. And the more pies you bake and sell, the more you're driving on the highway. And who's paying for the upkeep of that highway anyway? Who patches it? repaves it? plows it in the winter? Who paid for the electricity to illuminate it at night? Who paid the road crew to put up signs? Who clears debris off the road? Who polices that highway so I don't hijack your truck and steal those sweet apples to make my own goddam pies? Cuz I'm mighty tempted to take your apples, you milksop weakling, and in this every-man-for-himself utopia of yours, why shouldn't I?

We live in society where we are all interdependent on one another, and for you to make your apple pies and sell them you are dependent on a system run and maintained by taxes. The highway is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm glad we live in a society with services provided to both rich and poor, services funded by taxes. And the richer you are, more likely the more you are taking advantage of this society built by others with its wide range of services provided by others. Of course you should pay more taxes if you are wealthy and take advantage of what this society has to offer you. I wouldn't want rich folks to be parasites on society, would you? Rand didn't like people who just take and take and take from others...


message 41: by Liam (last edited Aug 12, 2015 11:45AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope Petergiaquinta wrote: "Wait, let's go back to this pavement/pie discussion...so the road crew that built the highway for you to drive on to go to the apple orchard got paid once to build it, as you point out. But you kee..."
I understand that taxes are responsible for public services, BUT the point I was making was that the people who did it got paid, not so you or me could make apple pie, so they could get paid, with MONEY, calling me a milksop weakling only shows that you didn't understand the point and blew up over the only thing you did. MY POINT is that you don't owe society anything, they got what they wanted, so just enjoy your damn pie, and then everyone will be happy, you got your pie, and the workers got money.


message 42: by Jerold (last edited Aug 12, 2015 12:28PM) (new)

Jerold Tabbott It never surprises me anymore when I see the utter ignorance and misrepresentations posted by Rand-bashers, most of whom, typically, have never even read (and clearly have not understood) her work. And man! The apple orchard scenario is one of the oldest I've seen.

The first entry of this post is what caught my attention, since it reflects a complete disregard for reality. I'll apologize for not reading all, but this type of discussion has long ago become very boring an unproductive.

Liam - you are wasting your time, because the Montys of the world do not wish to listen to anyone but themselves, and believe the double-talk and omissions that sound so good to them should somehow magically make what they say valid - when it is just babbling horse….


message 43: by Jerold (last edited Aug 12, 2015 12:36PM) (new)

Jerold Tabbott Liam - I should add that those Rand bashers seeking out forums on Atlas Shrugged or other of Rand's books are typically inveterate trolls. They fashion themselves as being "philosophical", wish to prove it, and will go on and on about it, because they are not bound by any rationalism, honesty, or logic - proving instead an utter dedication to their own ignorance on the subject.

When you answer them, you only encourage them. They are really a waste of your time. Been there. Done that. There is no gratification to trying to correct them. Leave them stupid, as you found them.


message 44: by Karen (new)

Karen Monty wrote;
"Good grief, this is just the way I thought 30 years ago. You haven't been tested. Let's talk again in a few years.

You're taking a narrow view and fallaciously extrapolating it as universal. Each person defines for him/herself their higher power according to spiritual need, and no one has authority to judge someone else's definition."

Now I need to chime in here- this is probably the only thing I object to in your argument here Monty. You are implying that everyone has a higher power and/or believes in God. This is simply nonsense- there are many atheists out there (myself included) who do not think the way Rand does.


message 45: by Karen (new)

Karen Liam! Are you the fourteen year old I recently "met" on the Lolita thread! Yep, you are! Of course you are an impressionable kid, understandable for your age, but if you want to learn and love literature as you say you do, remember you have a lot to learn. Keep reading.


message 46: by Monty J (new) - added it

Monty J Heying Karen wrote: "You are implying that everyone has a higher power...

Didn't mean to imply that.


message 47: by Liam (last edited Aug 12, 2015 02:00PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope Jerold wrote: "Liam - I should add that those Rand bashers seeking out forums on Atlas Shrugged or other of Rand's books are typically inveterate trolls. They fashion themselves as being "philosophical", wish to ..."
Finally, an ally!
And, I know that I probably won't change their minds, but I have honestly been enjoying this debate, it strengthens my mind. I believe that me and Monty's opinions on these subjects are to important to keep to ourselves.


message 48: by Karen (new)

Karen Liam wrote: "And, I know that I probably won't change their minds, but I have honestly been enjoying this debate, it strengthens my mind. I believe that me and Monty's opinions on these subjects are to important to keep to ourselves."

It's Monty and I, or even I and Monty would be correct, but it sounds awkward.
I'm glad you like to debate, just giving you a little tip so others will take you more seriously.



message 49: by Liam (new) - rated it 5 stars

Liam Shope Oops, sorry. Yeah, I guess that would read badly. Thanks.


message 50: by Jerold (last edited Aug 12, 2015 02:20PM) (new)

Jerold Tabbott Well, if you're enjoying it Liam, it's your choice, which is entirely what Rand and Objectivism is about - each individual has an inherent right to make their own decision what is right for them, so long as they do not interfere with or abrogate that same right in others. The only negative consequence of this is that everyone is also responsible for their own life mistakes. They can overcome such rough spots through both learning, and fair and equal cooperation with others.

But you are on your own trying to explain this to those with hands over their ears and eyes. If, as Karen implies, you are fourteen, be consoled that I am sixty-four and the basic moral values found in Rand's work will only make you a better and fairer person in life. Ignore anyone who tries to say that you are too young to "understand" their higher, more selfless and "loving" moral system. They're lying and they just don't know it.


« previous 1
back to top