5 ms·

If they are so predictable then you must know how they will respond to being provoked with condescending names such as "Randroids?" Is there a specific response

by Benjo 16y ago

If they are so predictable then you must know how they will respond to being provoked with condescending names such as "Randroids?" Is there a specific response you want to see? Are you trying to exploit some known stack overflow bug in this specific Randroid model? Why be so dismissive and insulting and then respond to the same poster you advised others to ignore? I'd much rather read the predictable respectful discussion than a presumptive judgement designed to prevent discourse. Edit: removed a redundant adjective.

philwelch 16y ago
When the topic is government assistance to the needy, it's indeed trivial to predict what one of Rand's disciples would argue about the subject. My point (which you can view either as a tangent, or as a point of order) is that most of us are contributing original thoughts from our own perspectives, not simply adopting and commenting from the perspective of some novelist with some admittedly seductive ideas. If we were interested in Ayn Rand's ideas, we could read Ayn Rand herself. It's not useful to have her ideas proselytized to us.
- maxharris 16y ago
  > It's not useful to have her ideas proselytized to us. But you can't properly speak for other users on this site ("us.") You can (and certainly have) spoken for yourself, but a claim to represent more seems pretentious at the least.
- Benjo 16y ago
  Again, "some novelist" and "disciples" are dismissive terms that you're using to shut down the conversation by belittling the source of one poster's ideas. If you think the discussion is not useful, make an argument to support that claim. Link to criticism. Or demonstrate that the Randputer is not arguing in earnest. If you don't consider the fact that you might be wrong, that there might be something useful about the discussion in question, then how are you any better than someone who won't consider that Rand might be wrong?

by Benjo 16y ago

philwelch 16y ago

When the topic is government assistance to the needy, it's indeed trivial to predict what one of Rand's disciples would argue about the subject. My point (which you can view either as a tangent, or as a point of order) is that most of us are contributing original thoughts from our own perspectives, not simply adopting and commenting from the perspective of some novelist with some admittedly seductive ideas. If we were interested in Ayn Rand's ideas, we could read Ayn Rand herself. It's not useful to have her ideas proselytized to us.

maxharris 16y ago
> It's not useful to have her ideas proselytized to us. But you can't properly speak for other users on this site ("us.") You can (and certainly have) spoken for yourself, but a claim to represent more seems pretentious at the least.
Benjo 16y ago
Again, "some novelist" and "disciples" are dismissive terms that you're using to shut down the conversation by belittling the source of one poster's ideas. If you think the discussion is not useful, make an argument to support that claim. Link to criticism. Or demonstrate that the Randputer is not arguing in earnest. If you don't consider the fact that you might be wrong, that there might be something useful about the discussion in question, then how are you any better than someone who won't consider that Rand might be wrong?