Ayn Rand followers want to murder Muslims

[Sky]

These Ayn Rand followers are nothing but despicable apologists for capitalism, oppression, and imperialist enslavement. They are the true fascists of today and must be confronted and suppressed wherever they're found.

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2006/oct/17/lecture-discusses-totalitarian/


In a lecture co-sponsored by UCLA L.O.G.I.C. and Bruins for Israel, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, discussed the problem presented by what he sees to be Islamic totalitarian regimes – and suggested a drastic way of defeating them.

Brook said Islamic totalitarian states pose a severe threat to the security of the United States and other Western nations and suggested that a way to defeat these regimes is to kill up to hundreds of thousands of their supporters. He said only a resurgence in the pride for Western civilization can help the West defeat those Islamic states.

Monday night’s lecture was part of a series of events, titled “The Western Culture Series,” put on by L.O.G.I.C., which stands for liberty, objectivity, individualism, greed and capitalism. The series explores philosophical and intellectual ideas of Western cultures.

Brook’s speech dealt with why Western nations come into conflict with totalitarian states, which is rooted in their differing views on the value of life and individualism. Brook said the difference between the two is that while the West values individualism and freedom, totalitarian regimes do not.

Other events of the Western Culture Series focus on ideas, such as religion versus morality and individual choice.

At the event, Brook questioned the motivation of the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

The root of terrorists’ ability to conduct such attacks is in their this willingness to destroy their own lives in order to kill others, which comes from the ideology behind Islamic totalitarianism. This ideology, which blends religion and politics, dominates every aspect of its followers’ lives and is the enemy of the United States and the rest of the Western world, Brook said.

He said these regimes are strengthened by U.S. policy in the Middle East, which tries to bring democracy into the region. These democratic elections are letting Islamic nations elect extremists and terrorists to power. He used Hamas’ victory in the Palestinian election earlier this year as an example of this tendency, referring to Hamas as an Islamic totalitarian organization.

Brook said that since September 11, 2001, extremism and totalitarianism have been increasing, not decreasing, and Iran has become a model for an Islamic state under Islamic law for other states to follow.

Some students in the lecture agreed strongly with the speech.

“I wish more people would come to hear people willing to stand up for what is good and what is right,” said Gary Hagins, secretary of L.O.G.I.C.

Brook said the increase in extremist activities throughout the Islamic world is due to a continued moral weakening in the U.S.

“What challenges us is our own moral weakness,” which are
multiculturalism and moral relativism, Brook said.

The solution is for the U.S. and the West to find a philosophy that embraces their moral good, which are the ideas of Ayn Rand, an author and founder of objectivism, Brook said. Objectivist philosophy promotes objective reality, rationality, self-interest and capitalism.

The self-interest tenet of objectivism advocates that one’s own life is worth defending by any means necessary, which would allow the United States to justify defeating Islamic totalitarianism by killing a large number of its supporters, according to Brook.

He added that the killing would shrink popular support for extremist ideas to a small minority of the population, as opposed to the 40 percent Brook says are supporting the regimes now.

Not everyone in the audience agreed with Brook’s idea of mass military action.

“(Brook) said we are fighting their beliefs, and I don’t think it is possible to get rid of people’s beliefs by military action,” said Farnaz Califi, who works for the Los Angeles Times.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Hey, you only have to care about yourself.

[Demogorgon]

Ayn Rand nuts are even more insane than you are. They quite honestly sicken me to my very core. I honestly believe that with the effective absence of any kind of Nazi presence in America (beyond tiny pathetic groups), people of that kind of authoritarian outlook have turned to things like Objectivisim instead.

It is interesting to watch them get worse and worse over time. Rand herself was a despicable excuse for a human, but she generally opposed war, particularly the Vietnam War, was not very enthusiastic towards the death penalty and was willing to work with a variety of people across the political right to achieve her aims.

Now many of her followers advocate continuous war and deliberate genocide, the execution of just about every criminal and say anyone who disagrees with them to be inherently evil. In a way that is for the best of course, it keeps them safely out of the mainstream. Back when Rand herself was still alive she was able to carry off being a respectable author and Hollywood script writer and her ideas were openly cited as an influence by people like Reagan and Thatcher. I doubt many would go near her now.

Let's be clear of course. Rand was just like L. Ron Hubbard, she started a cult to make money ad encourage more people to buy her books. She probably did take herself seriously and honestly believed the fascist shit she was spouting, but at the end of the day she was probably primarily concerned with making money and surrounding herself with sycophants to distract her from her depression. Her followers these days are a different kettle of fish though.

[Psy]

Ayn Rand nuts are even more insane than you are. They quite honestly sicken me to my very core. I honestly believe that with the effective absence of any kind of Nazi presence in America (beyond tiny pathetic groups), people of that kind of authoritarian outlook have turned to things like Objectivisim instead.

It is interesting to watch them get worse and worse over time. Rand herself was a despicable excuse for a human, but she generally opposed war, particularly the Vietnam War, was not very enthusiastic towards the death penalty and was willing to work with a variety of people across the political right to achieve her aims.

Now many of her followers advocate continuous war and deliberate genocide, the execution of just about every criminal and say anyone who disagrees with them to be inherently evil. In a way that is for the best of course, it keeps them safely out of the mainstream. Back when Rand herself was still alive she was able to carry off being a respectable author and Hollywood script writer and her ideas were openly cited as an influence by people like Reagan and Thatcher. I doubt many would go near her now.

Let's be clear of course. Rand was just like L. Ron Hubbard, she started a cult to make money ad encourage more people to buy her books. She probably did take herself seriously and honestly believed the fascist shit she was spouting, but at the end of the day she was probably primarily concerned with making money and surrounding herself with sycophants to distract her from her depression. Her followers these days are a different kettle of fish though.

It is so annoying debating them because they don't deny capitalism is amoral, instead they claim amorality is good.

Dr. Yaron Brook responded to a environmentalist that crashed his Ayn Rand lecture asking him about global warming by stating global warming is best dealt by capitalism as the people with money will move to parts of the world still habitat to life and everyone else don't matter. Take a look Yaron Brook on Capitalism, Question 5 - Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkobdaR9wBk)

I wonder why Ayn Rand nuts haven't been attacked by the mainstream bourgeoisie as Ayn Rand supporters probably hurt support for capitalism more then help. The mainstream bourgeoisie does not want people to think capitalism doesn't care if the average persons lives or die as the average person would take offense to that, while the Ayn Ran nuts are so anti-social in that they are offended by normal human emotions for others. I'm starting to think Ayn Rand supporters mostly are people that are socially abnormal.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I wonder why Ayn Rand nuts haven't been attacked by the mainstream bourgeoisie

They perceive Ayn Rand as being right, but don't think the working class and petty-bourgeoisie will take kindly to hearing about the sham unless it's posted in completely good light?

[Bluetongue]

I'm starting to think Ayn Rand supporters mostly are people that are socially abnormal.

Not that I like Randites, but really, dude, pot; kettle.

[Psy]

They perceive Ayn Rand as being right, but don't think the working class and petty-bourgeoisie will take kindly to hearing about the sham unless it's posted in completely good light?

Yet Randites are not carrying the bourgeoisie class line that philanthropy solves all the amoral issues of capitalism. See the bourgeoisie mostly are supporters of Leo Strauss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss) theory of noble lies and deadly truths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Noble_lies_and_deadly_truths) in that the truth is irrelevant all that matters is getting results. So most bourgeoisie would support telling the masses that they are Gods if they thought it would work.

[Psy]

Not that I like Randites, but really, dude, pot; kettle.
I don't see Marxist as socially abnormal, most people simply are cynical, they would like to live in a Marxist world but thinks it utopian.

[pusher robot]

Ayn Rand nuts are even more insane than you are. They quite honestly sicken me to my very core. I honestly believe that with the effective absence of any kind of Nazi presence in America (beyond tiny pathetic groups), people of that kind of authoritarian outlook have turned to things like Objectivisim instead.

That's just silly. I've known plenty enough of them to know that they really do care about other people. They come off as cold and self-absorbed because they carry the principles of individualism through to their logical conclusion, they are obsessive about logical consistency. They definitely are not authoritarian in the sense of wanting to control other people.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Ok, some "Randroids" are wacky, but please people stop calling them fascists. Fascism and objectivism are radically different. "Fascism", like it or not, is a political ideology, not an insult.

[Comrade Rage]

I agree. Randroids are all pretty wierd, but they're not fascists. If you want to call them authoritarian, OK, but Fascism is totally different.

[IcarusAngel]

That's just silly. I've known plenty enough of them to know that they really do care about other people. They come off as cold and self-absorbed because they carry the principles of individualism through to their logical conclusion, they are obsessive about logical consistency. They definitely are not authoritarian in the sense of wanting to control other people.

This is the biggest lie in this thread.

Explain how Ayn Rand was more logically consistent than the Utilitarians or even Marxists.

And explain how capitalism = individualism.

[Psy]

I agree. Randroids are all pretty wierd, but they're not fascists. If you want to call them authoritarian, OK, but Fascism is totally different.

What do you call for the head of the Randriods calling for genocide of Muslims as he linked Islam with terrorism? Is that not like how Nazi's justified genocide of the Jews? I still get a fascist vibe from them.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This is the biggest lie in this thread.

Explain how Ayn Rand was more logically consistent than the Utilitarians or even Marxists.

And explain how capitalism = individualism.

Pusher Robot is is under the false impression that individualism derives from capitalism.

Comply to my property rights. :laugh:

[Os Cangaceiros]

I personally don't believe that Rand herself followed Egoism to it's "logical conclusion". As compared to someone like, say, Max Stirner.

[Axel1917]

Words simply fail to describe how utterly reactionary and totalitarian Randites are. If it were possible for Randites to be in power (thankfully, it isn't!), their regime would really give the Third Reich a run for its money, if not totally surpass it in totalitarian brutality.

[Demogorgon]

That's just silly. I've known plenty enough of them to know that they really do care about other people. They come off as cold and self-absorbed because they carry the principles of individualism through to their logical conclusion, they are obsessive about logical consistency. They definitely are not authoritarian in the sense of wanting to control other people.
Come of it, they don't have an ounce of logical consistency in their whole bodies.

The whole cult is just a combination of bored teenagers wanting to be rebellious by being "totally individualist" (exactly the same reason many dress up in black trenchcoats and listen to Marilyn Manson and really hardcore authoritarians looking for the most extreme right outlook they can find. Why do you think the Ayn Rand cult is so keen to advocate genocide at every opportunity?

The thing is fascism taken to its logical extreme. You will note that there is some form of state that they like. They like huge military and police forces and they say that taxes to fund these things are justified so long as the poor are paying more.

The irony is they are not even vaguely individualist. Not only do they excommunicate from their cult anyone who holds a view even slightly at odds with them but they categorise people into huge groups with no respect for their personality. Rand for instance said all women were natural hero-worshipers and hence a woman should not aspire to leadership.

More recently Leonard Peikof claims that all iraqi's are responsible for Saddam Hussein and approved of him by living under him, so hence the only moral thing America can do is to kill as many of them as possible. Extreme collectivism and extreme fascism.

The cult is really just the American version of the Neo_nazi and other fascist groups you find in Europe.

[Psy]

Words simply fail to describe how utterly reactionary and totalitarian Randites are. If it were possible for Randites to be in power (thankfully, it isn't!), their regime would really give the Third Reich a run for its money, if not totally surpass it in totalitarian brutality.
Well the problem is if they got in power they would be threatened from both the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie don't want the Randites version of capitalism, the petite-bourgeoisie might be happy about it, but not the large capitalists that are use to buying favors from the state (as the Randities are opposed to government backing big business) won't be happy. With Blackwater being guns for hire the bourgeoisie probably take the money they used to pay off government bureaucracies and give that money to Blackwater to violently overthrow the Randites.

The Randities would need a brutal police state just to survive.

[pusher robot]

Come of it, they don't have an ounce of logical consistency in their whole bodies.

You simply cannot generalize that way, unless you are willing to both label me a liar and simultaneously insist that you know the minds of every objectivist, in which case I will label you a liar.

[Demogorgon]

You simply cannot generalize that way, unless you are willing to both label me a liar and simultaneously insist that you know the minds of every objectivist, in which case I will label you a liar.
Objectivism is an inherently inconsistent outlook given that it is an extreme form of collectivism claiming to be individualistic. Someone cannot hold to that position and still be consistent.

If you wish to prove yourself correct, all you have to do is give an example of members of the cult being objective. Can you?

[Psy]

You simply cannot generalize that way, unless you are willing to both label me a liar and simultaneously insist that you know the minds of every objectivist, in which case I will label you a liar.

I listened lectures by Yaron Brook, he says capitalism already has laws to deal with pollution by factories so individuals can deal with individual polluters in court yet when faced with the question of global warming he states property owners has no moral recourse against capitalists that ruined their property through climate change as people don't have a moral right to live where they want, then flip flops on his previous statement earlier in his lecture about his stance on air pollution and changes to the stance that there is no moral right of protecting your property from pollution but you have the moral right to relocate alway from air pollution.

Meaning Yaron Brook supports property rights unless it means collective action is needed to defend property rights then he doesn't support property rights as collectives are evil.

[pusher robot]

Objectivism is an inherently inconsistent outlook given that it is an extreme form of collectivism claiming to be individualistic. Someone cannot hold to that position and still be consistent.

Why not? Don't you think it is possible for individuals to voluntarily choose to cooperate? Objectivism is predicated on the supremecy of individuals to collectives. Logically, this must mean that if those same individuals choose to act collectively, they may do so!



If you wish to prove yourself correct, all you have to do is give an example of members of the cult being objective. Can you?

The "objective" in "objectivism" is intended to mean that they do not rely on fundamentally unproveable axioms (at least, none that matter.) They believe that their tenets are logically derived from the nature of the universe.

[pusher robot]

I listened lectures by Yaron Brook, blah blah blah

Do all objectivists agree with Yaron Brook? Somehow, I doubt it. What are you trying to prove with this anecdote? That some objectivists are loopy? Shall I proceed to highlight all my experience with obviously cracked communists? What would that prove?

[Demogorgon]

Why not? Don't you think it is possible for individuals to voluntarily choose to cooperate? Objectivism is predicated on the supremecy of individuals to collectives. Logically, this must mean that if those same individuals choose to act collectively, they may do so!No. They say for instance that all Muslims deserve death, simply for being Muslims. That has nothing to do with voluntary Collectivism. Similarly they say everyone who lived in Iraq must have supported Saddam Hussein and should die. Again nothing to do with being voluntary. They simply treat people as belonging to groups they define and refuse to treat them as individuals or even humans.


The "objective" in "objectivism" is intended to mean that they do not rely on fundamentally unproveable axioms (at least, none that matter.) They believe that their tenets are logically derived from the nature of the universe.
Ha! You will have a hard job proving that. Not only are many of their axioms unprovable (Rand's central slogan was "existence exists". While I agree with that, she made absolutely no attempt to disprove skepticism). Similarly their views in no way follow from their axioms. Which of their axioms for instance can the view that being a non smoker is immoral be said to be drawn from?

Objectivism is a hilarious thing. You don't even have to use a single left wing argument to utterly discredit it. One of the most devastating critiques of the cult was written by Murray Rothbard after all.

[Demogorgon]

Do all objectivists agree with Yaron Brook? Somehow, I doubt it. What are you trying to prove with this anecdote? That some objectivists are loopy? Shall I proceed to highlight all my experience with obviously cracked communists? What would that prove?

Objectivists hold that anyone who disagrees with the objectivist outlook in any way is inherently evil. So to them to disagree with Yaron Brook is to be evil and hence not an objectivist. See their crap on "Sanction" for proof of that.

[pusher robot]

No. They say for instance that all Muslims deserve death, simply for being Muslims. That has nothing to do with voluntary Collectivism. Similarly they say everyone who lived in Iraq must have supported Saddam Hussein and should die. Again nothing to do with being voluntary. They simply treat people as belonging to groups they define and refuse to treat them as individuals or even humans.

Again, you are grossly distorting the actual argument as presented for the sake of attacking a straw man. The real argument is that in executing their right of self-defense, the people in the United States are not morally required to use anything less than lethal force. The basis of the use of force against Islamic terrorists and their alleged supporters is their prior use of force against U.S. citizens, not "simply for being Muslims." Your characterization is as unfair as one that accuses revolutionaries of wanting to kill capitalists "simply for being capitalists." I do not agree with either point of view, since I believe that self-defense should be both proportional and individuated, but I understand the logic of both sides.



Ha! You will have a hard job proving that. Not only are many of their axioms unprovable (Rand's central slogan was "existence exists". While I agree with that, she made absolutely no attempt to disprove skepticism). Similarly their views in no way follow from their axioms. Which of their axioms for instance can the view that being a non smoker is immoral be said to be drawn from?


The "existence exists" axiom is both self-evident and immaterial, because if existence does not in fact exist then the contemplation of the existence of existence does not, in fact, exist. It's one of those axioms that is unprovable but doesn't really matter.

And once again you put up a straw man to attack. Who, exactly, argues that choosing not to smoke is immoral?



Objectivists hold that anyone who disagrees with the objectivist outlook in any way is inherently evil.


Aaaaaaand we're 3 for 3 on the straw men!

[Demogorgon]

Again, you are grossly distorting the actual argument as presented for the sake of attacking a straw man. The real argument is that in executing their right of self-defense, the people in the United States are not morally required to use anything less than lethal force. The basis of the use of force against Islamic terrorists and their alleged supporters is their prior use of force against U.S. citizens, not "simply for being Muslims." Your characterization is as unfair as one that accuses revolutionaries of wanting to kill capitalists "simply for being capitalists." I do not agree with either point of view, since I believe that self-defense should be both proportional and individuated, but I understand the logic of both sides.

No, not only do they argue that anyone seen to oppose the United States should be exterminated, they claim that anyone who is a Muslim, and indeed anyone who lives in the Middle East is ipso facto a supporter of terrorism and must die. That is collectivism no matter what way you look at it.


The "existence exists" axiom is both self-evident and immaterial, because if existence does not in fact exist then the contemplation of the existence of existence does not, in fact, exist. It's one of those axioms that is unprovable but doesn't really matter.If you are going to make a big deal out of it like Rand did, you are going to have to provide an answer to skepticism. Rand never did. As it happens, I don't have any particular urge to talk about skepticism either. I must confess that it bores me silly. The fact is though that Rand said it was her central position from which all else flowed. She should have given an argument for it. The same goes for her other axioms as well. The fact is that for all she liked to claim otherwise, she was no philosopher and came up with no coherent belief system. She simply poured right wing pseudo philosophy into her novels to make them sell and then finding that attracted a bunch of followers focused on pedaling that.


And once again you put up a straw man to attack. Who, exactly, argues that choosing not to smoke is immoral?

Rand herself for a start. And the rest of her cult for that matter. Again we can cite Murray Rothbard. When he was briefly involved in her cult, he had to demonstrate he was allergic to tobacco to be allowed to join in, because they were not otherwise willing to accept a non-smoker amongst them. That says a lot.


Aaaaaaand we're 3 for 3 on the straw men!
No, it is simply what they claim. That is why you will see most of them saying it would be acceptable to murder Nathaniel Brandon for instance. He broke ranks with objectivism largely over the facthe wanted to sleep with women other than Rand herself and has since disagreed on a few issues here and there. Objectivists thus hold he is irredeemably evil. Really though, no need to take my word for it. You say you have spoken to Objectivists, so have i. Now go one better as I have done and speak to some ex-Objectivists. The stories they will tell you.

[pusher robot]

No, not only do they argue that anyone seen to oppose the United States should be exterminated, they claim that anyone who is a Muslim, and indeed anyone who lives in the Middle East is ipso facto a supporter of terrorism and must die. That is collectivism no matter what way you look at it.

All you've done is restate your straw man argument. How about pointing to something that supports your interpretation.


If you are going to make a big deal out of it like Rand did, you are going to have to provide an answer to skepticism.There is no answer to that extreme form of skepticism; that is the answer. It is both unanswerable and irrelevant.

She should have given an argument for it.She said it was self-evident. You seem to agree, so I'm not sure what your criticism really is.


The same goes for her other axioms as well. The fact is that for all she liked to claim otherwise, she was no philosopher and came up with no coherent belief system. She simply poured right wing pseudo philosophy into her novels to make them sell and then finding that attracted a bunch of followers focused on pedaling that.

You ought not claim your opinion as fact. It is arrogant.

Rand herself for a start. And the rest of her cult for that matter. Again we can cite Murray Rothbard. When he was briefly involved in her cult, he had to demonstrate he was allergic to tobacco to be allowed to join in, because they were not otherwise willing to accept a non-smoker amongst them. That says a lot.Nope, you are wrong. That anecdote is simply triple hearsay, something Rothbard says a friend heard someone else tell him someone else told him. Whoop-de-freaking-do. Furthermore, I'm even willing to grant that there are fruitcakes who are objectivist who are inconsistent with their own espoused principles, just like there are Marxists who are nutty who are inconsistent with their own espoused principles. I'm not sure what you think that proves about the principles themselves.


No, it is simply what they claim. That is why you will see most of them saying it would be acceptable to murder Nathaniel Brandon for instance. He broke ranks with objectivism largely over the facthe wanted to sleep with women other than Rand herself and has since disagreed on a few issues here and there. Objectivists thus hold he is irredeemably evil. Really though, no need to take my word for it. You say you have spoken to Objectivists, so have i. Now go one better as I have done and speak to some ex-Objectivists. The stories they will tell you.

Really. Guess what I hear when I talk to ex-communists? Look, you are transparently trying to judge an entire group of people - more than that, judge their beliefs - based on the behavior of the extremists of that group. As a bleeding communist you of all people should know why this is fallacious.

[Demogorgon]

All you've done is restate your straw man argument. How about pointing to something that supports your interpretation.Go and snoop around their websites or listen to them when they appear on TV or the radio. They say it often enough. In as many words.


She said it was self-evident. You seem to agree, so I'm not sure what your criticism really is.
I never said it was self evident. i said it was an utterly pointless diversion. If Skepticism is correct it hardly matters if we are wrong about everything else, so why worry? Rand on the other hand had this point as the centre of her cult. She therefore had to give some evidence for it

You ought not claim your opinion as fact. It is arrogant.No, that is fact. There is a reason why Rand is not taught in philosophy courses, why her views are not included in the Stanford Encyclopedia, why all the right wing philosophers rushed to distance themselves from her and so on. I will give you a clue. It is the same reason that L. Ron Hubbard isn't taught in philosophy

Nope, you are wrong. That anecdote is simply triple hearsay, something Rothbard says a friend heard someone else tell him someone else told him. Whoop-de-freaking-do. Furthermore, I'm even willing to grant that there are fruitcakes who are objectivist who are inconsistent with their own espoused principles, just like there are Marxists who are nutty who are inconsistent with their own espoused principles. I'm not sure what you think that proves about the principles themselves.

I would re-check that, were I you.


Really. Guess what I hear when I talk to ex-communists? Look, you are transparently trying to judge an entire group of people - more than that, judge their beliefs - based on the behavior of the extremists of that group. As a bleeding communist you of all people should know why this is fallacious.
I am sure you here plenty about Communism from ex-communists, but that is immaterial. You cannot compare an ex-objectivist to an ex-Communist, because Communism is a broad political movement whereas objectivism is just a freaky cult. A legitimate comparison would be an ex-Libertarian to an ex-Communist.

Really talking about judging objectivist's behaviour based on some extremists is stupid, because that's all Objectivists are. They are extremists. It is a crazy quasi-religious cult spouting ultra-authoritarian and ultra-right wing political views. You can no more say that there are objectivists that don't hold these views than you can say that there are Neo-Nazis who like Jewish people. Objectivism as opposed to common or garden Libertarianism is characterised by its authoritarianism and belief that disagreement is evil.

[pusher robot]

Objectivism as opposed to common or garden Libertarianism is characterised by its authoritarianism and belief that disagreement is evil.

Well, I simply think you are wrong about that and suspect this is the source of our disagreement, but evidently neither will persuade the other. All I ask that you hold yourself to the same standard - don't judge others evil because they disagree with you. It is possible for people to reach different conclusions in good faith.

[Psy]

Well, I simply think you are wrong about that and suspect this is the source of our disagreement, but evidently neither will persuade the other. All I ask that you hold yourself to the same standard - don't judge others evil because they disagree with you. It is possible for people to reach different conclusions in good faith.
You see the question and answers period with Ayn Rand on Phil Donahue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7cje1I3VM) (6mins in)?

When someone challengers her view she says it is her show (It was Phil Donahue's, Ayn Rand was only a guest) and starting on a ego trip about how everyone came to only hear her point of view and that they should shut up and let people stroking her ego talk. She even comes out and says she doesn't deal with those that disagree, meaning you either hold her up as a God or you are wrong and she doesn't want anything to do with you.

[pusher robot]

She even comes out and says she doesn't deal with those that disagree, meaning you either hold her up as a God or you are wrong and she doesn't want anything to do with you.

Or it could mean that she simply doesn't feel like arguing with people who disagree. And if that feeling is illegitimate, then why am I restricted?

[Psy]

Or it could mean that she simply doesn't feel like arguing with people who disagree. And if that feeling is illegitimate, then why am I restricted?

Why did she say it was her show? Wasn't she infringing Donahue's individual right of being the host of the show? By what moral or legal right did she have ownership of the show? Doesn't her outburst suggest she was only there to stroke her ego? Doesn't it suggest she wanted a personality cult around her?

[Demogorgon]

Well, I simply think you are wrong about that and suspect this is the source of our disagreement, but evidently neither will persuade the other. All I ask that you hold yourself to the same standard - don't judge others evil because they disagree with you. It is possible for people to reach different conclusions in good faith.
Yes, of course. The day I say otherwise is the day you can say i have lost all sense of principles.

Obviously people can disagree with me and still be good people, however there are a few outlooks that do indicate that a person is an unsavory character. For instance if somebody thinks the extermination of the Jewish population is a good thing, then I am afraid I do not wish to associate with them. Similarly if somebody adopts the sheer misanthropy that characterises Objectivism, I am suspicious. I will make an exception for teenagers, the Objectivist account specifically flatters teenage attitudes in search of followers. I mean it is not long since I myself was a teenager (much as certain people refuse to believe it:() and I know how intoxicating talk of being an individual and your own master, the world be damned can be. The fact that it is entirely inconsistent will not weigh heavily on such people. But grown adults who advocate objectivism, and indeed join in calls for genocide as most of them do; I cannot say I wan't much to do with them.

[RGacky3]

It is so annoying debating them because they don't deny capitalism is amoral, instead they claim amorality is good.

Good, :), an Honest Capitalist, if you are OK with being an exploiter, then good for you, you can in good consciounce support Capitalism, and I cannot judge you, just fight against you.

[redSHARP]

you know if you play with his name "Ayn Rand " you get A-R-Y-A-N! pretty interesting if you ask me. (you can just thorugh out the "d" for the sake of the joke)

[Zurdito]

Brook said Islamic totalitarian states pose a severe threat to the security of the United States and other Western nations and suggested that a way to defeat these regimes is to kill up to hundreds of thousands of their supporters


Not a particularly novel idea, or a very effective one. We already have a "war on terror" which has claimed over a million Iraqi lives (and an unaccounted for number in Afghanistan), so it seems our friend missed the boat somewhat.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

you know if you play with his name "Ayn Rand " you get A-R-Y-A-N! pretty interesting if you ask me. (you can just thorugh out the "d" for the sake of the joke)

Ayn Rand was a woman.

[hekmatista]

Message and discussion board of our local antiwar group in Reno was totally dominated by Libs spouting Objectivist-sounding arguments. To any suggestion that there is such a thing as "the social good," they got hysterical and demanded to be "left alone" to talk to themselves. It did not take long for me to agree.

[RHIZOMES]

Well Ayn Rand did say Arabs had a "barbaric culture". She's a cultural supremacist. i.e. a fascist who doesn't want to admit she/he's a racist ass.

[Psy]

Good, :), an Honest Capitalist, if you are OK with being an exploiter, then good for you, you can in good consciounce support Capitalism, and I cannot judge you, just fight against you.
When debating one (I was just messing with his head, didn't plan on converting him) he said if I think workers are the source of value then why didn't the workers of the 7th century have more wealth, suggesting they were poorer because the capitalist class didn't exist yet and once capitalist did exist wealth greatly increased thus capitalist must be the primary source of value creation in the modern world.

Have to say I was taken back by the total stupidity of the argument.

[Peacekeeper]

Fuck Ayn Rand, she's a fascist.