Those who are against Ayn Rand, care to shed some light on the reasoning?

She has added boredom to the already long list of anti-government crimes.

 

Someone is going to have to convince me that competitive markets exist before I can even start on Rand's nonsense.

 

She was a nun c-nt b-tch who never got properly laid.

PS - the way this forum replaces letters with (*) for relatively common words for the sake of those fearful reading said words will cause their hemeroids to pop is giving me a theory why ancient Hebrew was written without vowels.

Dudes... if you're going to censor words, stop replacing them with (*)(*)(*)(*). Just replace the vowels with an asterisk.

 

Oh, so we should reject the philosphy of anyone who happens to like drugs? We should then dump the theory of relativity, theory of gravity, and f**k psychology. Oh, and if we're to dump on people's theories because they have Asperger's, then maybe we should dump all the theories of the greatest physicists, like Einstein and Newton.

... WTF? how the f**k do you get "hate humanity" from what Ayn Rand wrote? Because she believed in real self-determination? WTF. Seriously.

I've heard this BS before. What Ayn Rand and Jesus espoused were not contrary. Jesus preached a philosophy of what YOU should do, not what your government should do (notice how Jesus never preached to Kings, Governors, i.e. Pilate, etc.). Ayn Rand's philosophy is one of self-determination, where you have no real obligation, you simply do what you want to (w/o harming others). Anything else is forcing a stricter belief system on others, and we might as well prohibit blasphemy.

 

Wow, Troi, you're really defending Rand's nonsense?

I thought you were better than that.

 

Liberals' don't mind rushing into the ranks of hitler no more?

 

If by "competitive markets" you mean market with above-zero competition then yes, it existed all the way along history, if you mean 100% free-market then no, it never had truly existed.

 

In other words, you just show the rest of the members how clueless you are about her and you don't even know the basic principles and tactics of debating?

 

Which nonsense are you referring to?

As an 'Ayn Rand fan' (I used the word "fan" so some undereducated, under-enlightened liberal buffoons could understand my position), I rightfully acknowledge she has a lot of insane ideas, but which particular one are you people who against her are referring to?

Most "rebuttal" here are either attack on her personally or on views that do not even belong to her.

 

My biggest issue with her is that she considered greed and selfishness "virtues" and thought a man who kidnapped, brutally raped, and murdered a young girl was a saint.

 

Yes they are.

Did Boeing started boeing company for money or for helping humanity? Did Bill Gates rip off Steve Jobs for money or for making computers more amateur and easier to access?

RAT, you are a reasonable man, I know you will give your honest answer to yourself. But I'm not soliciting you to give it here.

And while you are at it, I know you consider yourself an intelligent person and an atheist, but I'm afraid that you had fallen into the most imbecilic trap of virtually all religion — the hatred for individuals to pursuit achievement and happiness.

Pity.

BTW:I made a thread on 'greed' months ago and teared every piece of liberal argument into pieces.

Ah... that. Yes, that's the insane part, but I have to point out she used that guy as a novel inspiration, she admire his feat — the part he can completely ignore others' feeling, clearly not the abducting and killing part.

But look how liberals freak out and scream when I pointed out with hard-hitting facts that Hitler is a huge welfare state practitioner and did increase german's welfare budget to a ridiculous degree. That thread was then deleted because the entire forum were rendered by that thread resemble a liberal-bashing site.

With that said, I'm still not vindicating her admiration, not because admiring an appalling criminal would make her no less a murder — no — were that true, MLK should be entirely discredited for he was a confirmed adulterer, possible alcoholic and pedophile, but because that believe is inherently anti-market. A success business must be a business that knows how to and do care what others' think the most.

After all, what's the point of Nielsen Families?

 

I'm not an atheist.

I don't know, man. She didn't condemn the kidnapping, rape, and brutal murder. Plenty of words of praise and admiration though.

Hitler was also a painter. Should we imprison all painters and shun every painting?

 

Sorry.

Must've confused you with someone else.

She didn't even bother to look at that direction, I suppose.

I could very well be wrong.

That's my point. So you can't censure Ayn Rand for drawing inspiration from a heinous killer.

BTW, Hitler really wasn't in anyway talented in his painting. He is the recording type, not the creating type.

 

I don't want to censure Rand. Quite the contrary, I would encourage everyone to (at least attempt to) read her writings and study her ideas.

 

Hmmm... Okay

 

the rantings of a bitter idiot for bitter idiots thats why people criticise rand

 

Against Ayn Rand?

I've never read any of her non-fiction work, so I can't comment on that, but the two of her fiction works that I read were simply stories in a FAKE universe, like all fiction is. The two stories I read, like most stories, came from a viewpoint that she liked, and painted the viewpoints that she didn't, negatively. It was a work of fiction, divorced from reality, like most of the policy standpoints that mirror her work.

Just because Ayn Rand chose to write about the struggle of the worker does not mean she was qualified to do so more than the next guy or girl. She just happened to write stories that people who share her views tend to enjoy. Happens all the times with a myriad of other issues, but it never makes those authors experts on their subject, especially when they have a specific angle they are trying to sell.

 

Look, after a while, the whole "I'm a liberal moron that don't know how to debate and how to argue but I'm gonna exhibit my ineptness nevertheless" thing really is getting old.

But, carry on then. As I always say, a good laugh will never be too much.

 

Wow, you just gave both the two words "vague" and "ambiguous" as well as the phrase "beating around the bush" a set of whole new definition.

Got anything substantial?

 

If you're looking for an in depth analysis, sorry to disappoint. It's been about 10 years since I read both of the books that I did, so specifics are a bit light, however I can easily remember the feeling I had about her stories. Why I trust my analysis though, is because when I read them, I did not read them in the context of "this is Ayn Rand and she supports conservatism and free market capitalism". It was more along the lines of being bored in study hall, and choosing the book from the mini-library my high school study hall had in her room.

They were not quirky detailed subtle works of genius. They were stories where you can tell who the author obviously sympathizes with. She was obviously someone who valued hard work and limited control, and valued those things above most others. That's fine, I tend to disagree with those views, but I have no objections to them. Both then and now, I have the impression that her work lived in a universe of her own creation where she could conveniently control all the dynamics that went into making her stories work the way they did. That's the freedom every author has. Her views on the subject were the "right" ones in her story because she got to control the universe in which they existed(even though control is bad according to her). That's why you don't look to fiction writers for advice on real world subjects.

 

That is pure egotism and does not care a crap about other people, only about yourself. That is the ideology of Rand, a woman that lived in whole hipocresy, and when she got retirement she was using the services provided by government like healthcare Yeah, that is great.

 

A catholic or christian school doctrinates in their doctrine the children. They don't help without any interest.

While someone that is using the solidarity he will help for nothing in exchange. That is the greatest difference between them. And also charity is something that only rightist will practice, because charity is only possible in an unequal system and is practiced from a superior position to a lower.

 

Well if you think anyone would implement fictional works into reality, you will be immensely disappointed.

But that does not mean we can not draw inspiration from works of fiction.

Ironically, people that had done the most damage to the market are distinctively Ayn Rand adherents. Namely Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.

 

THe problem most atheists have is this nagging inner voice calling them to "moral" conduct. Although they deny the source of this voice, they cannot escape its grasp completely, and any efforts to do so causes them to forfiet their humanity and worth as a human being. When we see those in need, we are instinctively motivated to intervene in some way. There is no way around it.

The question then becomes, how do we intervene? For the atheist, government is the arbitrator of "good" and "bad" through its various laws because all laws have a moral component. As such, they become the authority through which society must act in a moral fashion. However, for those of faith there is the church that is their moral authority. Look at any organized effort to help the poor in the world outside of government and what you will find is that they are dominated by those of faith.

So there you have it. By killing "God" you have unwittingly embraced Big Brother. It is one or the other for we are but sheep that have gone astray in search of a "good" shepherd.

I think this is why when I encounter atheists they are in large part advocates of Big Government. For atheist like Marx, religion is merely an opiate for the masses. Government can then intervene to make us more "righteous" instead of the church. Of course, not all atheists are advocates of Big Government, like Rand, but I think the reasons for this propensity have just been explained.

 

Nope, not a drop. It's a work by a playwright with no training whatsoever in the field, it's an emotional rant that is void of any analysis, empiricism or theory whatsoever. A lot like your mindless partisan rant.