and, for all that, a work of fiction (and, frankly, not very good fiction--stilted characters, wooden dialogue, and enormous plot holes). star trek, both television and film and quite popular, also presents a fictional representation of life, and in that, the role of money is greatly diminished. and yet the characters in those fictions still strive to excel. point being, these are works of fiction and therefore all artificial governed only by the author's imagination (douglas adams in his hitchhiker series even made it possible for humans to defy the law of gravity). to take "atlas shrugged", "the fountainhead", "anthem" or "moby ****" as anything other than fiction--even didactic fiction--is to give it a place beyond its merit. and as for it being a life-supporting philosophy, because it, demanding selfishness as its foundation, blinds itself to the reality that we, as a species, have advanced more rapidly through co-operation than selfishness (a topic adequately covered by a '70's television documentary by james burke called "connections," which makes the great point that our great technological leaps are built up over time relying upon an earlier invention). so, please continue to read whatever texts you like, but rand presented an america which never existed. seriously, what railroad can you think of which is named after a family? where in that novel do you find a conglomerate, which were extant in the '50's? and did you notice that the government, which in that era and earlier exerted military force to topple foreign governments for us corporations, doesn't play a role like that in her work? you should realise, then, that this is a highly stylised author manipulated world. she creates the strawman and knocks it down--not much of a philosophical feat.
Quote: Originally Posted by JohnyRain .Explain this to me: How do you extract from CAMPYBOB's posting a quote from one of Ayn Rand's characters that he is an atheist? It is just such unreasoned leaps as that that discourage me, and I suspect others, from engaging in what you so loosely term "debate".
you do realise that the interactions with him are nothing i would in any way characterise as conversation or debate, but giving as good as he gives it? he posts incendiary comments and then runs from the argument when challenged, returning only to make personal attacks on the one who challenged him. those posts concerning him are insults and are intended as such. as for your real question, if you have actually read her works, you cannot have missed that rand, herself, dismisses the possibility of being both religious and objectivist. inescapable fact. if you self-identify as an objectivist, then the here-after cannot exist. if you self-identify as an objectivist, then you have to accept her point that the sacrifice christ made is the very thing she despises in that quotation blobbo used--the sacrifice of one's life for others. these are paraphrases of her words, not mine.
Quote: Originally Posted by JohnyRain .
I am no fan of Bush, Cheney or waterboarding, but it was better than the actions of the administration we currently have, which doesn't waterboard them, they just kill them and anyone else in the way with drones. Bush and Cheney protected our ambassadors abroad too. They also didn't mandate that we purchase a product that we don't want on a web site that doesn't work. This is too easy - later.
so, you castigate "communism" for being anti-life, yet, it's okay for america to behave in that manner? this strikes me as hating the sinner and loving the sin. it's particularily revealing that you accept the actions under bush-cheney as distasteful but necessary to preserve our nationhood, but blanch at the use deadly force against others. does it lurk somewhere in the back of your thinking that bush only had the bad guys tortured? as for you disdain for the aca, review the supreme court's decision as to the nature of this product. they termed it a levy, which the us government has the power to do as stated in the constitution. as i've noted before, you have given me no reason to consider you anything less that a tea partier, even if you don't care for the characterisation. additionally, if you feel like disobeying the law, feel free to do so. accept the consequences for your actions. further, as most states require auto insurance, push your protest against the infringements on your liberty by refusing to get that. same for home owners insurance. power to the people! oops, sorry. forgot individualists like to stand alone surrounded by like thinking others. as ben franklin noted, we hang together or we shall hang separately. he was always funnier than patrick henry, anyway.
