RE: Ayn Rand -Faith vs Reason
January 9, 2011 at 4:15 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2011 at 4:18 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
It's true that it's possible to interpret such books in a harmless way...
...but it's also true that if such things weren't there to interpret, there would be no possibility of a harmful interpretation of it.
Just as it's true that there can be nuclear arms without nuclear war...
...but it's also true that if there were never any nuclear arms, nuclear war would be impossible.
It's true that weapons (including the unarmed weapons of the human body) don't kill people, people kill people...
...but it's also true that there can be no people killing people without weapons (if you include the unarmed weapons of the human body).
...but it's also true that if such things weren't there to interpret, there would be no possibility of a harmful interpretation of it.
Just as it's true that there can be nuclear arms without nuclear war...
...but it's also true that if there were never any nuclear arms, nuclear war would be impossible.
It's true that weapons (including the unarmed weapons of the human body) don't kill people, people kill people...
...but it's also true that there can be no people killing people without weapons (if you include the unarmed weapons of the human body).
