(August 9, 2012 at 11:43 am)Napoleon Wrote: Oh? Care to point out the mis-characterizations and ad-homs?
Take a look at the video in the first post.
(August 9, 2012 at 11:43 am)Napoleon Wrote: "Discussions started ostensibly for the reason of criticizing her" - No, when people start threads criticizing bible scripture they don't just do it 'ostensibly for the reason of criticizing it'. They do it for a more underlying reason, mainly to show that if something is stupid it should be treated as such. The same can be applied to this thread, and Ayn Rand's (in my opinion) retarded philosophies.
Actually, no, the same principle cannot be applied here. The bible has had a deep-rooted and far-reaching effect on societies, and politics throughout the world for centuries. The underlying reason for its criticism is to negate that effect.
Unless you are saying that Atlas Shrugged has had the same effect as the bible on today's society, there is simply no comparison between the two.
(August 9, 2012 at 11:43 am)Napoleon Wrote: To say it is unwarranted or unnecassary, is foolish given the above point. If someone finds something stupid, they have every right to point out that it is stupid, make a thread saying it is stupid, post a video saying it is stupid. At the end of the day it's all in the interest of sharing knowledge in the hope that stupid ideals are treated as stupid ideals.
Then I look forward to you starting discussions on Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Animal Farm and Panchatantra.
(August 9, 2012 at 11:43 am)Napoleon Wrote: As for who keeps it in circulation, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. If there are people out there who still parade these ideals around as though they are genius, and there are people who disagree, the people who disagree have a right to turn around and say why they think it's bollocks. Regardless of whether the subject matter is 2000 years old or 20, if there are people about who still think it is correct the people who want to point out otherwise can say so.
Its one thing to criticize ideas you come in contact with and quite another to bring up ideas simply for the purpose of criticism. And as for people parading around her "ideas", I've never seen anyone who commits to hers completely and this is one case where the author herself has stated that no middle-ground is acceptable.
(August 9, 2012 at 11:43 am)Napoleon Wrote: Personally I'd never even heard of Ayn Rand until someone quoted her in this forum. What you or I think about who is most vocal on the subject is purely anecdotal.
No, its not. Not if a simple perusal of the comment reveals a predominant hatedom.
