Bashing Ayn Rand

[Doubletap]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=4k9tD7iHo0c]Ayn Rand interviewed by James Day 1/2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BlindBoo]

No, she was neither great nor is she missed.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/11-3

Ayn Rand: The GOP's Godless Philosopher | TIME.com

Daily Kos: Hero or Monster: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

 

[Redfish]

Ayn Rand accurately predicted where this country was going in Atlas Shrugged. She accurately showed how liberal governments destroy countries and economies.

Like her or hate her------she was right.

see my sig.

 

[Redfish]

No, she was neither great nor is she missed.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/11-3

Ayn Rand: The GOP's Godless Philosopher | TIME.com

Daily Kos: Hero or Monster: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

you post 3 left wing sites and think that is somehow meaningful?

 

[Meathead]

I thought this was going to be about Thatcher and Britain today.

 

[g5000]

Atlas Shrugged should have been a short story. It is by far the most repetitive drudgery ever written.

I would wager most of the alleged conservatives who fly her banner don't even realize she was a hardcore atheist objectivist, and that objectivism misses an understanding of human nature by a country mile.

 

[dilloduck]

Atlas Shrugged should have been a short story. It is by far the most repetitive drudgery ever written.

I would wager most of the alleged conservatives who fly her banner don't even realize she was a hardcore atheist objectivist, and that objectivism misses an understanding of human nature by a country mile.

You mean like liberals who have never read the bible? It's quite possible to agree with one's politics but disagree with their take on religion.

Ayn was correct --sorry you didn't like the way she expressed it.

 

[Redfish]

Atlas Shrugged should have been a short story. It is by far the most repetitive drudgery ever written.

I would wager most of the alleged conservatives who fly her banner don't even realize she was a hardcore atheist objectivist, and that objectivism misses an understanding of human nature by a country mile.

I agree that Atlas Shrugged is a difficult read, thats probably why most liberals who claim to know what its about have never read it.

What she believed personally has very little to do with the message of the book.

Why do you think that personal responsibility and personal freedom are bad things?

Why do you think that personal success is bad?

Why do you believe that for one man to get rich another man has to be made poor?

Why are liberals unable to think logically?

 

[JWBooth]

As an author of fiction, she was mediocre at best.
As a political/social philosopher...I think of her along the same lines as I do P.T. Barnum...her presence deflected notice (and still does) from greater thinkers/commentators...Chodorov, Nock, Mencken, Lane, Garret, Dos Passos and others.

 

[g5000]

Atlas Shrugged should have been a short story. It is by far the most repetitive drudgery ever written.

I would wager most of the alleged conservatives who fly her banner don't even realize she was a hardcore atheist objectivist, and that objectivism misses an understanding of human nature by a country mile.

I agree that Atlas Shrugged is a difficult read, thats probably why most liberals who claim to know what its about have never read it.

There are many conservatives who have claimed to have read it who clearly have not.

Not that I really blame them. Those of us who completed it deserve a medal for enduring it.

What she believed personally has very little to do with the message of the book.

Why do you think that personal responsibility and personal freedom are bad things?

Why do you think that personal success is bad?

Why do you believe that for one man to get rich another man has to be made poor?

Strawman fallacy, and fallacy of the excluded middle. Which is to be expected from a fanboi of Rand.

I don't believe any of those things. Did you even read my signature?

Why are liberals unable to think logically?

Irony! That's THREE logical fallacies you commited in a single post!

I am old school conservative.

Ayn Rand paints every character in black and white in her writing. She does not believe in shades of gray.

Her complete and utter failure is demonstrated in the train tunnel scene, where she finds every last man, woman, and child on that train worthy of execution.

She was one sick puppy.

 

[Katzndogz]

We could certainly use a philosopher of Rand's caliber now. It's doubtful that it would make an impression on totalitarian liberals but the rest of us would benefit.

What is Objectivism? | Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Individualism | The Atlas Society

Ayn Rand was a philosopher who studied the works of the philosophers that have gone before. It might not be possible to understand her work without a passing knowledge of past philosophers. Particularly the philosophies of utopian constructs. That's why so many find that her work makes no sense. Once someone has a basic understanding of Plato's Republic, Hobbes' Leviathan and More's Utopia, Rand's writings become clear and prophetic. She just updated the findings of those philosophies to the industrial society. Her genius is revealed.

Debating or discussing Ayn Rand with those who are not familiar with the foundation of her opinions is like an astronomer trying to make a savage understand the stars . It can be done. It just shouldn't be done because of the futility in the attempt.

 

[dilloduck]

well of course. She is a proponent of using reason. Liberals cannot conceive of acting on reason. Liberals act on what feels right at the time

 

[Katzndogz]

Atlas Shrugged should have been a short story. It is by far the most repetitive drudgery ever written.

I would wager most of the alleged conservatives who fly her banner don't even realize she was a hardcore atheist objectivist, and that objectivism misses an understanding of human nature by a country mile.

I agree that Atlas Shrugged is a difficult read, thats probably why most liberals who claim to know what its about have never read it.

There are many conservatives who have claimed to have read it who clearly have not.

Not that I really blame them. Those of us who completed it deserve a medal for enduring it.

What she believed personally has very little to do with the message of the book.

Why do you think that personal responsibility and personal freedom are bad things?

Why do you think that personal success is bad?

Why do you believe that for one man to get rich another man has to be made poor?

Strawman fallacy, and fallacy of the excluded middle. Which is to be expected from a fanboi of Rand.

I don't believe any of those things. Did you even read my signature?

Why are liberals unable to think logically?

Irony! That's THREE logical fallacies you commited in a single post!

I am old school conservative.

Ayn Rand paints every character in black and white in her writing. She does not believe in shades of gray.

Her complete and utter failure is demonstrated in the train tunnel scene, where she finds every last man, woman, and child on that train worthy of execution.

She was one sick puppy.

And you have absolutely no idea of what the train tunnel represented.

At the risk of trying to educate you.

Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: That Winston Tunnel Scene in Full

As part of our "Atlas Shrugged" 50th Anniversary discussions, we present one of the most controversial passages from Ayn Rand's bestseller. Here the doomed Comet train, part of the decaying infrastructure in slow motion collapse due to concomitant political, social and economic collapse, heads towards disaster in the eight-mile Winston tunnel:

 

[Redfish]

Atlas Shrugged should have been a short story. It is by far the most repetitive drudgery ever written.

I would wager most of the alleged conservatives who fly her banner don't even realize she was a hardcore atheist objectivist, and that objectivism misses an understanding of human nature by a country mile.

I agree that Atlas Shrugged is a difficult read, thats probably why most liberals who claim to know what its about have never read it.

There are many conservatives who have claimed to have read it who clearly have not.

Not that I really blame them. Those of us who completed it deserve a medal for enduring it.

What she believed personally has very little to do with the message of the book.

Why do you think that personal responsibility and personal freedom are bad things?

Why do you think that personal success is bad?

Why do you believe that for one man to get rich another man has to be made poor?

Strawman fallacy, and fallacy of the excluded middle. Which is to be expected from a fanboi of Rand.

I don't believe any of those things. Did you even read my signature?

Why are liberals unable to think logically?

Irony! That's THREE logical fallacies you commited in a single post!

I am old school conservative.

Ayn Rand paints every character in black and white in her writing. She does not believe in shades of gray.

Her complete and utter failure is demonstrated in the train tunnel scene, where she finds every last man, woman, and child on that train worthy of execution.

She was one sick puppy.

I like your sig. I guess we just disagree on Rand. Taking her literally is a mistake, the message is more subtle than that. I guess thats why there is so much controversy about her.

As to the "excluded middle". Nothing in Rand says that everyone should be either rich or poor. The message is hard work and risk taking should be rewarded and the workers and risk takers should be allowed to keep what they earn.

 

[Katzndogz]

I read the book has absolutely no relationship, whatsoever, to I understand the book.

 

[editec]

All hale the queen of misanthopes.

 

[Katzndogz]

No, she was neither great nor is she missed.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/11-3

Ayn Rand: The GOP's Godless Philosopher | TIME.com

Daily Kos: Hero or Monster: Ayn Rand and William Hickman

Daily Kos? Really? You cite the Kos Kids?

 

[dilloduck]

All hale the queen of misanthopes.

please listen to the link. She explains her views on charity.

 

[Katzndogz]

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years - WSJ.com

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

Some liberal is going to come along and say "She was an atheist." Or, "She took social security". Or some other nonsense.

 

[g5000]

As the tunnel came closer, they saw, at the edge of the sky far to the south, in a void of space and rock, a spot of living fire twisting in the wind. They did not know what it was and did not care to learn.

It is said that catastrophes are a matter of pure chance, and there were those who would have said that the passengers of the Comet were not guilty or responsible for the thing that happened to them.

The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence, that individual effort is futile, that an individual conscience is a useless luxury, that there is no individual mind or character or achievement, that everything is achieved collectively, and that it's masses that count, not men.

The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion 'for a good cause' who believed that he had the right to unleash physical force upon others - to wreck lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder - for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of 'a good cause',which did not even have to be an idea, since he had never defined what he regarded as the good, but had merely stated that he went by 'a feeling' -a feeling unrestrained by any knowledge, since he considered emotion superior to knowledge and relied soley on his own 'good intentions' and on the power of a gun.

The woman in Roomette 10, Car No.3, was an elderly schoolteacher who had spent her life turning class after class of helpless children into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil, and that a majority may do anything it pleases, that they must not assert their own personalities, but must do as others were doing.

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No. 4, was a newspaper publisher who believed that mend are evil by nature and unfit for freedom, that their basic interests, if left unchecked, are to lie, to rob and murder one another - and, therefore, men must be ruled by means of lies, robbery and murder, which must be made the exclusive privilege of the rules, for the purpose of forcing men to work, teaching them to be moral and keeping them within the bounds of order and justice.

The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan, under the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

The man in Drawing Room A, Car No 6, was a financier who had made a fortune by buying 'frozen' railway bonds and getting his friends in Washington to 'defreeze' them.

The man in Seat 5, Car No.7, was a worker who believed that he had "a right" to a job, whether his employer wanted him or not.

The woman in Roomette 6, Car no. 8, was a lecturer who believed that, as a consumer, she had "a right" to transportation, whether the railroad people wished to provide it or not.

The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that intelligence plays no part in industrial production, that man's mind is conditioned by material tools, that anybody can run a factory or a railroad and it's only a matter of seizing the machinery.

The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, 'I don't care, it's only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.'

The man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11, was a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap little plays into which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all businessmen were scoundrels.

The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge.

The man in Bedroom F, Car No.13, was a lawyer who had said, 'Me? I'll find a way to get along under any political system.'

The man in Bedroom A, Car No.14, was a professor of philosophy who taught that there is no mind - how do you know that the tunnel is dangerous? - no reality - how can you prove that the tunnel exists? - no logic - why do you claim that trains cannot move without motive power? - no principles - why should you be bound by the laws of cause and effect? - no rights - why shouldn't you attach men to their jobs by force? - no morality - what's moral about running a railroad? - no absolutes - what difference does it make to you whether you live or die anyway?. He taught that we know nothing - why oppose the orders of your superiors? - that we can never be certain of anything - how do you know you're right? - that we must act on the expediency of the moment - you don't want to risk your job do you?

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No.15, was an heir who had inherited his fortune, and who had kept repeating, 'Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?'

The man in Bedroom A, Car no. 16, was a humanitarian who had said, 'The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned.'

These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas. As the train went into the tunnel, the flame of Wyatt's Torch was the last thing they saw on earth.

Really cheap, simplistic writing by one sick puppy.

If you read that quote, you have read the whole book. Seriously. I just saved you weeks of torture.