ScottHanson

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by ScottHanson 18y ago

   Practice makes perfect.
2. 2.▲
   by ScottHanson 18y ago

   The original article has nothing of interest in it.
3. 3.▲
   by ScottHanson 18y ago

   Randinistas! A question. Did Roarke have the moral or legal rights to destroy the development after the owners changed the design?
4. 4.▲
   by ScottHanson 18y ago

   You first!
5. 5.▲
   by ScottHanson 18y ago

   The point of the blog is the question: do the successful at least part of their success to the society they grew up in. Ayn Rand says no; Gladwell says yes.
6. 6.▲
   by ScottHanson 18y ago

   Rand's vilification of people who disagree with her is irritating, but what's more troublesome is the victim mentality that goes along with it. Inevitably the protagonist (who is handsome, smart, determined, and surprisingly domineering in
7. 7.▲
   by ScottHanson 18y ago

   How so?
8. 8.▲
   by ScottHanson 18y ago

   "As for the article being garbage, I appreciate where the author is coming from, but it's not insightful enough to warrant a link. Not to say it won't stir up the Objectivists here a whole lot." The article has value in that it's stirred up
9. 9.▲
   by ScottHanson 18y ago

   Apple is for faggs only.
10. 10.▲
    by ScottHanson 18y ago

    It's only a garbage article if you're a fanatical Rand groupie. The post contributes to an important societal debate over whether or not the successful owe anything back to society, such as taxes. Obviously it's stimulated a lot of heat.