3 ms·

Perhaps if that scene hadn't been mirrored elsewhere in the book, you'd have an argument; however, as somebody else said in this thread, Rand doesn't leave her

by rinich 17y ago

Perhaps if that scene hadn't been mirrored elsewhere in the book, you'd have an argument; however, as somebody else said in this thread, Rand doesn't leave her writing up to interpretation. She clearly states multiple times that she doesn't believe catastrophe is capable of hurting good people. Note how while bad countries are hit by hurricanes and floods, Dagny never once has to worry about the weather, or about anything other than the bad people in her way. it's a parable of suicide by stupidity Do you realize how ghastly a concept that is? To say that if you think things Ayn Rand thinks are bad, you're essentially killing yourself? We call that fascism.

anamax 17y ago
> Do you realize how ghastly a concept that is? To say that if you think things Ayn Rand thinks are bad, you're essentially killing yourself? We call that fascism. Actually, we don't. We don't call it racism, fundamentalism, or homophobia for that matter. Unless, of course, you think that those words mean "you're poopy-head and I don't like you". I realize that you think that calling someone "fascist" is a winning "argument", but that doesn't mean that all of your opponents are fascists.
- rinich 17y ago
  I didn't call them any of those things. Projecting much? You don't have to be a fascist to think fascist thoughts. I was saying Rand espoused a fascist philosophy. People endorsing Objectivism are endorsing a line of thought that's fascist in nature. That doesn't necessarily make them fascists. Could be they're merely ignorant.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > I was saying Rand espoused a fascist philosophy. Nice attempt to try to move to something defensible. I'll quote your first attempt before following you. "To say that if you think things Ayn Rand thinks are bad, you're essentially killing yourself? We call that fascism." > People endorsing Objectivism are endorsing a line of thought that's fascist in nature. Oh really? Where in Objectivism do folks use the power of the state to control others? Where in objectivism do folks assume that the state will take care of their needs? Or, is the connection that you think that objectivists dress better than standard leftist totalitarians?

by rinich 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> Do you realize how ghastly a concept that is? To say that if you think things Ayn Rand thinks are bad, you're essentially killing yourself? We call that fascism. Actually, we don't. We don't call it racism, fundamentalism, or homophobia for that matter. Unless, of course, you think that those words mean "you're poopy-head and I don't like you". I realize that you think that calling someone "fascist" is a winning "argument", but that doesn't mean that all of your opponents are fascists.

rinich 17y ago
I didn't call them any of those things. Projecting much? You don't have to be a fascist to think fascist thoughts. I was saying Rand espoused a fascist philosophy. People endorsing Objectivism are endorsing a line of thought that's fascist in nature. That doesn't necessarily make them fascists. Could be they're merely ignorant.
- anamax 17y ago
  > I was saying Rand espoused a fascist philosophy. Nice attempt to try to move to something defensible. I'll quote your first attempt before following you. "To say that if you think things Ayn Rand thinks are bad, you're essentially killing yourself? We call that fascism." > People endorsing Objectivism are endorsing a line of thought that's fascist in nature. Oh really? Where in Objectivism do folks use the power of the state to control others? Where in objectivism do folks assume that the state will take care of their needs? Or, is the connection that you think that objectivists dress better than standard leftist totalitarians?