In this thread, JThunder counters an argument in favor of Ayn Rand by pointing out that just because she had a large influence or impact doesn’t mean it was a GOOD thing-after all, communism, racism, etc also had a large impact, but that doesn’t make them good.
Several people pointed out that was probably a bad way to make the point, but most of them got it.
However, our pal sleestak keeps hijacking the thread by screaming about how Rand is being slandered and how DARE she be included with such horrors!
No one was slandering Rand. (Although, there are plenty of ways to do so, and if you want to fight against “slander”, I could give you some examples, but they’re really not relevant.)
Maybe this is a weak rant, but for crying out loud, get a freaking grip already!
Here is one point by JThunder,
So would you please stop hijacking the thread, sleestak? Rand was not a saint, and people have the right to criticize her.
I would use examples of her own BEHAVIOR to do THAT!
Its possible I’ve been “whooshed,” but I would love to read a Pit Thread that arose over a discussion of Prime Numbers. If anyone has a link, I’ll thank you in advance for posting it here…
I’ll admit that I was over the top in making my point. At the same time JT did a drive by with his post. His first post in the thread did not include any arguements, just linking her philosphy to some of the nastiest ones around. Note, I wasn’t the only one who felt that JT’s post was out of line.
Also, he did the original hi-jack. If you look at my first post you will see that I a) answered another posters question, b) told the OP that he should finish the book himself instead of relying on others to do his thinking for him , which is on point, and c) told the Rand haters to give it a break because, while she wasn’t the best writer ever, she wasn’t the worst either.
I admit when I am wrong. I was pissed about some other things and let that bleed into my posts. I should have had more tact in my posts. But JT claiming that his drive by post was justified as a rational arguement is just BS. (How many people have died due to Objectivest philosophy? None. How many have died due to communism, fascism and slavery? Millions. Probably 30 + million in the last hundred years. Is that really a valid comparison?)
“”""""""""(How many people have died due to Objectivest philosophy? None. How many have died due to communism, fascism and slavery? Millions. Probably 30 + million in the last hundred years. Is that really a valid comparison?)"""""""""""
Nobody has died from the hands of one communist to another.
Communism could be argued as having had killed the population because they were too peaceful and trusting.
I would suggest that objectivist philosophy (i.e. RAND corp. next to UCLA etc…) has calculated and ordered far more deaths since its inception than totalitarianism as a historical phenomenon combined. Part of this is attributed to the fact that half the worlds human historical population is here right now.
Objectivist philosophy ignores virtue as a value. I believe part of the advantage is that viruous people are easy to abuse for personal happiness; and that objectivism considers this to be the prime truth of what ones goal should be.
You are claiming that no one died at the hands of a communists right? How about the 20 million that died in the USSR? How about Mao killing thousands, if not millions, in China? Pol Pot?
Justhink,
So killing millions of people is ok because, and I quote: “Communism could be argued as having had killed the population because they were too peaceful and trusting” is fine in your mind? The US didn’t kill those people, the communist governments killed those people.
Also, a little FYI, the RAND corp has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. There is a thing called google which you can use to search for information. The RAND corp name came from a contraction of the words ‘research and development’. You can find the info here
If you really believe what you posted give me cites. I doubt you can.
Doesn’t your first sentence here contradict your last sentence? If you were wrong, then you misunderstood JThunder’s point. If you still hold he was incorrect, then you weren’t wrong.
The following makes it quite clear…
**…that you still do not understand JT’s analogy. Period.
That’s demonstrably false, unless you’re being deliberately obfuscatory.
Sure, it could be argued. By a delusional, blind zealot, perhaps. And it’d be a vapid, pointless argument based in no fact and inane speculation, with a great deal of inveigled redefinitions thrown in to boot. But it could be argued, I suppose.
“No, it doesn’t. Recommended reading: The Virtue of Selfishness.”
Selfishness is NOT a virtue. No matter how hard little miss Rand can remotely attempt to convince people otherwise with her blather, it simply IS NOT a virtue. All it does is prove JustThink’s point.
Actually, you’re missing the point. Whether Rand is correct in referring to selfishness as a virtue or not is irrelevent. The point is that objectivism does not ignore virtue. Whether you agree with what objectivism considers virtue or not, the idea is still addressed. This is the opposite of Justhink’s point.
Unless I’m misinterpreting his point. More than likely, considering the poster in question.