# Ayn Rand for Dummies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078 "2009-11-02T18:16:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/481 "2009-11-12T22:20:27Z")
If I say that coffee is served hot, that does not mean that there has never, ever been a cold cup of coffee served. Its simply that, as a general sort of rule, coffee is served hot. Don’t be afraid to ask for help with these complex distinctions, we’re here to help! ---
**Author:** ![Infovore](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/infovore/32/420_2.png) [@Infovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Infovore)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/482 "2009-11-12T22:25:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So if I value living for others then is it moral to do so, if I value sacrificing myself for absolute strangers then is it moral to do so? Rand seemed to think that the desire to live for others (altruism) is all the result of a con by the mystics of religion and socialism? That it would be immoral for me to sacrifice myself for others. I think the first thing Rand would want to know is _why_ do you value sacrificing yourself for strangers. If you choose to serve in the military because you value your country, hold its values and your countrymen in high esteem, and want to protect them, then she might not approve of your reasoning (she felt that it was only moral to sacrifice for those worthy of such sacrifice, and I doubt she would consider a group of people all worthy–individuals, sure, but not everybody) but at least you have a reason (many would say a good reason) for doing so. If you truly get pleasure from denying yourself to “serve others” or “live for others” to the point where you are sacrificing your own needs and giving up your own interests to those of others merely because they _are_ others, then Rand (and I, for that matter) would probably call you irrational. I had a friend who used to be like that when I was in college. He seemed to get some perverse pleasure out of giving things up for others. I found it rather creepy. When I convinced him to read Atlas Shrugged (because I convinced all my friends in college to read it), he identified with James Taggart. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/483 "2009-11-12T22:38:34Z")
I am struck by your use of the word “perverse” without explanation. If one gives money to people who already have more than they can spend, when one could just as easily give it to someone who actually needs it, that might well be “perverse”. Or offering to buy a bottle of vodka for someone struggling for his sobriety, goes beyond “perverse” and heads straight for “evil”. So, how do you mean “perverse”? ---
**Author:** ![Infovore](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/infovore/32/420_2.png) [@Infovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Infovore)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/484 "2009-11-12T23:22:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I am struck by your use of the word “perverse” without explanation. If one gives money to people who already have more than they can spend, when one could just as easily give it to someone who actually needs it, that might well be “perverse”. Or offering to buy a bottle of vodka for someone struggling for his sobriety, goes beyond “perverse” and heads straight for “evil”. > > So, how do you mean “perverse”? Sorry about that, I wasn’t clear. It’s been a really long time since this happened. Maybe “perverse” wasn’t a good choice of words. “Inexplicable,” maybe. And it wasn’t like giving money to needy people or anything like that. I wish I could remember the specifics now. A fictional example of something I could see him doing (which he didn’t do–just an example) would be waiting in line for hours for concert tickets, only to give up his spot in line on a whim to a random stranger. This guy was a very whim-driven individual, and often did strange things that none of us could figure out. On a slightly different topic, there’s a character in “The Fountainhead” who kind of exemplifies the sort of altruism that I think is poisonous. Her name is Catherine Halsey. She’s a social worker. She tirelessly and “selflessly” works “for the good of the poor”–but she has a vested interest in wanting them to _stay_ poor and needy, because it makes her feel superior to be “helping” them. She gets a rush out of “helping the poor” because it lets her build herself up in her own mind, so the last thing she ever wants to do is have them succeed. I don’t believe for a minute that there aren’t people like that in the real world, even if they wouldn’t ever admit it or own up to it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/485 "2009-11-12T23:43:40Z")
But you could say that about any “do-gooder”, since no test can be applied to distinguish the “genuine” behavior from the “perverse”. Ms Rand has the privilege to create her characters to her whim, but how do the rest of us tell the difference? And of course there must be such people, there are billions of us, so there simply must be somebody like that, just as there must be someone who is sexually aroused by a one-legged midget on a pogo stick! (And if that person is reading this, the phone number is 612-555…) ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/486 "2009-11-13T00:16:15Z")
> [@winterhawk11](#): > > On a slightly different topic, there’s a character in “The Fountainhead” who kind of exemplifies the sort of altruism that I think is poisonous. Her name is Catherine Halsey. She’s a social worker. She tirelessly and “selflessly” works “for the good of the poor”–but she has a vested interest in wanting them to _stay_ poor and needy, because it makes her feel superior to be “helping” them. She gets a rush out of “helping the poor” because it lets her build herself up in her own mind, so the last thing she ever wants to do is have them succeed. I don’t believe for a minute that there aren’t people like that in the real world, even if they wouldn’t ever admit it or own up to it. I’ve always wondered how someone who drives a beat up Honda civic and makes $35,000 is supposed to help anyone become more financially successful. I firmly believe that one of the reasons Rand believed people should put themselves first is because of the pervasive attitutes among the poor, working and middle classes that tends to stifle achievement, creativity and innovation keep them firmly rooted in their station in life. I call it the “you think you better dan me” attitude. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/487 "2009-11-13T01:21:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yeah that was poorly written. Let me rephrase: > > So if I value living for others then is it moral to do so, if I value sacrificing myself for absolute strangers then is it moral to do so? Rand seemed to think that the desire to live for others (altruism) is all the result of a con by the mystics of religion and socialism? That it would be immoral for me to sacrifice myself for others. She would argue, I think, that it is irrational to sacrifice yourself for people you didn’t care about, and that being irrational is immoral. > [@](#): > > Sure the military gets paid to do what they do but for a lot of officers I know it is hard to come to the conclusion that military service was in their rational self interest if you do not place some value on duty and service. The personal rewards for military service are simply not that high compared to what they would get in the civilian sector. I would go so far as to say that for a lot of them wouldn’t be in the military even if it paid twice as much if it weren’t for their sense of duty and service. Well, they’re not Objectivists, then. Objectivists who joined the military would do so because it was in their rational self-interest. And an Objectivist society would structure it’s military to make it in the rational self-interest of enough people to join. > [@](#): > > Perhaps the problem is that people quote Rand in absolute terms (A=A, dontchagetit stupid?) and then respond to criticism by suggesting that I don’t understand the nuance of her philosophy. I think her philosophy is extremely simple to understand and that it has been applied exactly according to its terms by some of the most loathesome people in our society. Can you give some examples of these loathesome people? I’m drawing a blank. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/488 "2009-11-13T01:37:40Z")
Well, Hannibal Lecter was a Scientologist, so he’s out. Not David Koresh, some kind of Baptist, I think. Saddam was a Muslim, more or less. Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan’s all I got. And Greenspan isn’t “loathesome” so much as creepy. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/489 "2009-11-13T03:21:26Z")
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi] I mean to say that if that was ALL it was, Rand’s position is significantly broader than that (I will live for no other and I will not ask any other to live for me). I recognize that Rand has a thing about communism because the communists took away her dad’s money and she went from being daddy’s little princess to a refugee. [/QUOTE] Not to burden you with any of those inconvenient ‘fact’ thingies, but Rand’s daddy was just a pharmacist, lower middle class Jews, and ‘they’ (those playful communists) took everything and pretty much forced the family to flee because of a probably irrational fear of, you know, death…and all that. Why you continue to debate on this subject is a mystery to me. You don’t know (and are unwilling to even make a good faith attempt to grasp) Rand’s philosophy, don’t really know much about her writings, and from things like the above you are pretty much clueless about her life as well. And you obviously dislike her philosophy (or what you THINK is her philosophy) and her writings (all one of her books you skimmed). Not to be overly harsh, but do you know what this thread is about here? > [@](#): > > Seriously… this whole thread is about atlas shrugged and I have read the book. I don’t need to read everything ever written by Rand to have a valid opinion about her. That’s like saying I can’t have an opinion about God unless I am a priest. Answer to my above question seems to be: no. Seriously…the thread isn’t about Atlas Shrugged. Seriously. Read the OP. And seriously, while I’m not disputing that you perhaps ‘read’ Atlas Shrugged…seriously, you didn’t get it. Seriously. You can certainly have an opinion on god without being a priest (but that IS a rather nice strawman…you are too be commended on your inventiveness at least), but you can’t really claim any kind of grasp about Christianity because you skimmed a few chapters in the Bible (years ago) and can trot out an isolated speech by Jesus about something or another. I realize that you don’t get this, and that I’m essentially beating my head against the brick wall that is you in this thread, but maybe someone lurking will grasp this fairly basic idea. > [@](#): > > Nope, not necessary. I have read Atlas Shrugged and I have enough to form an opinion. There is nothing that you have said that makes me think that I am “misunderstanding” her. I have asked you about public education and military service and the answers speak for themselves. There is nothing I have heard that makes me think that Rand’s ideals are rocket science. They just aren’t complicated enough that reading a 1000 page book was insufficient (in fact I think you could probably boil down all the ideas into about 25 pages if you really tried). Let’s see. You’ve been answered about the public education and military, but don’t seem to be able to grasp the answers you’ve been given, since you keep asking the same thing over and over again. I never said Rand’s ideas were ‘rocket science’, just pointed out the glaringly obvious point that you don’t get it. I’m not suggesting you don’t get it because it’s too complex for you…I’m suggesting you don’t get it because it’s clear you don’t LIKE it, and it’s equally clear, your protests about having read Atlas Shrugged (a single one of her works) to the contrary, you really aren’t familiar at all with either her writing or her philosophy. BTW, this one wasn’t a very clever strawman…it was an old and tired one. But I guess you win some and you lose some. C’est la vie, ehe? -XT ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/490 "2009-11-13T03:40:25Z")
A few issues that have come up: > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No, I think Rand is probably agnostic on whether or not children get educated . . . I cannot conceive of anyone making that kind of statement. From \*\*\*The New Left . . . , \*\*“The only purpose of education is to teach a student how to live his life – by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality. The training he needs is theoretical, e.g., \*conceptual. _He has to be taught to think, to understand, to integrate, to prove. He has to be taught the essentials of the knowledge discovered in the past – and he has to be equipped to acquire further knowledge by his own effort.”_ > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > OK so tell me when military service would be moral and when it would be immoral according to Rand. Because as far as I can tell, if that military service is entered out of a sense of duty and service to country then it is immoral because you are subjugating your own interests for the interests of others. From \*\*\*Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: \*\*” A volunteer army is the only proper, moral – and practical – way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes – if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. . . . If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.” \*And about paying taxes: _“A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom. . . . One does not stop the juggernaut by throwing oneself in front of it.”_ > [@haymarketmartyr](#): > > Do you honestly think for even a minute that most folks would willingly and of there own free will pay taxes if they did not have to pay taxes? By making a statement like that, Rand and the anti-government crowd who follows her, are only setting the government up for failure and collapse … which come to think of it is probably the goal in the first place. Then who do you think supports the continuation of forced taxation? Everybody gripes about taxes, but the system is obviously being supported by the “consent of the governed,” if only as a “necessary evil.” Since most people consider it “necessary,” most people will pay. And if we get rid of all the projects that an Objectivist society would not be spending money on, the amount needed would be a fractions of what it is now. Would you refuse to pay taxes, if it were only spent to protect your rights, and there were a flat tax of, say, 1%? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well I agree that it isn’t always look out for number one and the philosophy inserts the word “value” to allow enough wiggle room so that Objectivism isn’t really objective. As I explained in a previous post, some values are objective and some are not. A value is “that which a man acts to gain and/or keep,” and that depends whether or not your goals or actions are consistent with the facts of realilty. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So if I value living for others then is it moral to do so, if I value sacrificing myself for absolute strangers then is it moral to do so? This would be exactly the opposite of Objectivism: Subjectivism (not to be confused with subjectivity). Just because you value something, doesn’t mean that value is objective or rational. \*Your feelings are not tools of cognition, \*and simply wanting (or valuing) something doesn’t make it moral. And also: just because you value something, doesn’t mean it’s in your own best interest. > [@winterhawk11](#): > > When I convinced him to read Atlas Shrugged (because I convinced all my friends in college to read it), he identified with James Taggart. :eek: I literally shuddered when I read that. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Perhaps the problem is that people quote Rand in absolute terms (A=A, dontchagetit stupid?) and then respond to criticism by suggesting that I don’t understand the nuance of her philosophy. I think her philosophy is extremely simple to understand and that it has been applied exactly according to its terms by some of the most loathesome people in our society. Then why are you so mistaken about so many aspects of her philosophy, and need to have so much explained to you? Perhaps because \*Atlas Shrugged \*is only one of many things she wrote, including a whole lot of nonfiction on a myriad of subjects. Not only do you not understand the “nuance” of her philosophy; you don’t even understand some of the essentials. Ignorance is no excuse, and in your case it seems to be deliberate. > [@elucidator](#): > > And Greenspan isn’t “loathesome” so much as creepy. He was back then, too. He always wore a black trench coat, and we (including Rand) called him “The Undertaker.” ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/491 "2009-11-13T03:57:09Z")
Boy these religious threads do drag on… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/492 "2009-11-13T03:57:34Z")
I would like to remind that declining to agree is not the same as a failing to understand. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/493 "2009-11-13T04:03:20Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I would like to remind that declining to agree is not the same as a failing to understand. [/QUOTE] And I’d like to remind you that no one is disputing this. You can agree or disagree, as the spirit takes you…as long as you actually DO understand the topic under discussion. However, if one demonstrably does NOT understand the subject (based on their clear misunderstanding of the basic concepts), yet they continue to interject their uninformed opinion, then it’s fairly apt to point this out, no? Would you not do so if the subject were something you had some knowledge of, and you were in such a discussion with someone who clearly didn’t understand even the basics…and were clearly not even making a good faith effort to TRY and understand? Have you not done so in the past? -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/494 "2009-11-13T04:39:36Z")
You really shouldn’t offer straight lines like that to me, I’m trying to be a better person, but you strew temptations in my path… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/495 "2009-11-13T04:54:11Z")
It was meant to be tinged with irony…both ways… -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/496 "2009-11-13T04:56:40Z")
Well, don’t go getting all subtle on me, **XT** , I’m just a country boy from Waco… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/497 "2009-11-13T07:56:21Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > … > From \*\*\*Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: \*\*” A volunteer army is the only proper, moral – and practical – way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes – if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. . . . If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.”… Now, I just don’t think this quite works, the explanation, like Ms Rands characters, is one-dimenstional, cartoonish, simplistic. Should our wholly rational man fight to defend his country, for reasons of self-interest, enlightened or no? Yes, we are offered, since his fighting protects his rights, and he wishes to preserve them. Ths deftly evades a notion of personal responsibility to a collective, unless you examine it. If I fight, my rights are preserved, but they are not if I don’t? Clearly, this places a greater regard for my individual military skills than is reasonable, if one million men are under arms to protect my rights, is it likely that one million and one is going to be the crucial difference? That my rights were almost going to be protected, but the effort would fail if I should not support it, that all will come tumbling down without Ghengis **'luc**? As massively impressed with myself as I may be, that’s a stretch. Point of fact, any such sacrifice on my part would contrary to self-interest, so long as I deny any collective responsibility to sacrifice for another. Now, I might be perfectly willing for another to sacrifice on my behalf, if his ethical and moral system compels him to, the poor dumb schmuck. But I didn’t ask him to, now did I? Nor would I ask for such a sacrifice, my Objectivist principles won’t permit that. But neither am I compelled to stop him. If his irrational and collectivist values compel him to do so, well, tough noogies, as the existentialists say. So, an Objectivist could not be faithful to Objectivism and risk the self-sacrifice of a military calling at the same time, unless his particular participation was utterly crucial to the effort, which simply is not a rational judgement. D-Day went along more or less well, and I was not there to tip the scales. I was not in Viet Nam, perhaps if I had been, it might have ended differently, but I very much doubt that. So, my rational self-interest certainly does not compel me to fight for my fellow citizens in a collective effort, in all probability, quite the opposite. If my fellow citizens cannot protect my rights, there is no reason to believe it would be any different if I were willing. In a nation of Objectivists, no army could function. Unless, of course, everybody stopped being Objectivists for the duration, and pick it back up when the shit is over. But that would be cheating. As far as a volunteer force being a check on military adventures on the part of an incompetent government, recent history would suggest otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/498 "2009-11-13T09:00:10Z")
You seem to be assuming that my self-interest is preserved regardless of the outcome of the war . . . that my life will continue as usual, regardless who wins. Assuming that I’m living in a relatively free country, being invaded by a less free country, that would not be the case. Your rational self-interest is meaningless if it doesn’t include standing up for your values, like freedom. And don’t forget that to Rand, a “value” is that which you act to gain and/or keep. If you don’t act to gain and/or keep your values when they are under attack, then you really can’t claim to have any values, plus you are a hypocrite and a coward. It’s definitely in my rational self-interest to live in a free country, and if that freedom isn’t a value to me, then this discussion is moot. At the end of _Atlas Shrugged,_ why do you think his buddies acted to save him, even risking their own lives? His life was an enormous value to each of them. Yes, any one of them could have stayed home and left the others to fight . . . but I can’t imagine any of them doing so. It’s called integrity, a major virtue to Objectivists. In a nation of Objectivists, if it were being attacked by a dictatorship, I cannot imagine people sitting at home, letting other people risk their lives. By definition, they wouldn’t be Objectivists. Rand herself said that she would risk her life to save the life of her husband . . . because life without him would be unbearable. ---
**Author:** ![haymarketmartyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/35a633/32.png) [@haymarketmartyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/haymarketmartyr)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/499 "2009-11-13T13:29:27Z")
from Panache45 > [@](#): > > In a nation of Objectivists … Where did I put that old LP with the George Carlin bit on oxymorons? [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/E6deudS3t7E/hqdefault.jpg "George Carlin Oxymorons") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6deudS3t7E) [http://cs.bilgi.edu.tr/~hobbittr/critical/carlin\_oxymorons.html](http://cs.bilgi.edu.tr/~hobbittr/critical/carlin_oxymorons.html) ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2009, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078/500 "2009-11-13T13:56:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > If I say that coffee is served hot, that does not mean that there has never, ever been a cold cup of coffee served. Its simply that, as a general sort of rule, coffee is served hot. Don’t be afraid to ask for help with these complex distinctions, we’re here to help! Well, that’s the problem fiery, overblown rhetoric. Even simple distinctions can get lost in all the bluster and hot air. In the future, you might want to dial back the sanctimonious outrage so that you can communicate more clearly. Histrionics is not a good substitute for actually having something to say. In any case, your point had nothing to do specifically with Ayn Rand or Objectivism. The possibility that Objectivism might be used as a moral rationalization for an unjust war doesn’t carry much when unjust wars have been fought under the banners of many other causes, ideologies and philosophies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rand-for-dummies/516078.md?page=26)