The Purity of Objectivists
Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago to The Gulch: General
khalling has, twice now, accused me of making threats, implying that some were directed at her. Her only example, thus far, is a comment wherein I said "you made me do it". The "it" in question was to expound upon the topic being discussed. It takes convoluted reasoning to consider that a threat... in my opinion.
I have been accused of comparing Objectivist values as to being consistent with child rape.
I give you the words of Ayn Rand:
"And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who'd oppose the plan was a child killer at heart and less than a human being."
I give you the words of a child killer:
"Have you ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? That's what comes to mind when I read things like this; the 'tobacco settlement'; Microsoft anti-trust charges; etc. And while we're at it, why stop here in remembering what is, essentially, 'spoils of war'?! (I don't have adequate space to list examples!) This is ridiculous! (but you can't say that because it's non-P.C.)"
http://www.randex.org/index.php/weblog/t...
Meanwhile, all sorts of atrocities are attributed here to Christians in general; a priest molests a choirboy, and it's not a perverted priest at fault, but Christianity as a philosophy which is faulted. When Christians attempt to defend their religion by saying such people don't truly follow the philosophy, they are mocked, scorned, or, usually, ignored.
Does anyone here truly believe that no one who claims to embrace Objectivism, who may even sincerely believe he follows the path of the philosophy, can or will ever be capable of atrocities, such as mass murder at the Murrah building?
Millions of people claim that reading Atlas Shrugged changed their lives, as millions make the same claim regarding the New Testament. But, it is never established that what they got from these two books is what was intended.
Does anyone here truly believe that embracing the Objectivist philosophy will make a paragon of virtue, by any standard of virtue you wish to use, of someone already corrupt, by any definition of corruption you wish to use? Do they? When even people here can't agree upon a concrete definition of Objectivism?
I have been accused of comparing Objectivist values as to being consistent with child rape.
I give you the words of Ayn Rand:
"And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who'd oppose the plan was a child killer at heart and less than a human being."
I give you the words of a child killer:
"Have you ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? That's what comes to mind when I read things like this; the 'tobacco settlement'; Microsoft anti-trust charges; etc. And while we're at it, why stop here in remembering what is, essentially, 'spoils of war'?! (I don't have adequate space to list examples!) This is ridiculous! (but you can't say that because it's non-P.C.)"
http://www.randex.org/index.php/weblog/t...
Meanwhile, all sorts of atrocities are attributed here to Christians in general; a priest molests a choirboy, and it's not a perverted priest at fault, but Christianity as a philosophy which is faulted. When Christians attempt to defend their religion by saying such people don't truly follow the philosophy, they are mocked, scorned, or, usually, ignored.
Does anyone here truly believe that no one who claims to embrace Objectivism, who may even sincerely believe he follows the path of the philosophy, can or will ever be capable of atrocities, such as mass murder at the Murrah building?
Millions of people claim that reading Atlas Shrugged changed their lives, as millions make the same claim regarding the New Testament. But, it is never established that what they got from these two books is what was intended.
Does anyone here truly believe that embracing the Objectivist philosophy will make a paragon of virtue, by any standard of virtue you wish to use, of someone already corrupt, by any definition of corruption you wish to use? Do they? When even people here can't agree upon a concrete definition of Objectivism?
