Actually, Rand really didn't care what people who never read her work thought about it. Or what people who didn't understand her work thought about it either. So she wouldn't sweat the endorsement of these two bozos or your attempt to tie them to her.
It's a pity, since she is not with us, that we won't be able to hear the verbal ass whipping she no doubt would have laid on you had she seen this.
My knowledge of Ayn Rand is from reading her books which are rife with self indulgent objectivism. Case in point, my post...two diametrically opposed people (one a libertarian/conservative and the other the worshiper of Satan) embracing self actualization while being completely devoid of any concern for their fellow human beings. Me, me, me isn't a revelation of truth it's wanton self indulgence at the expense of everyone else. As for Rand giving me a "verbal ass whipping" I thought it was your assertion, that: "She wouldn't sweat the endorsement of these two bozos or your attempt to tie them to her." Which is it, or are you incapable of making a decision? Here, let me help you...Why is it that a Satanist and pseudo- religious conservative, who believe Rand speaks to them thru her work and follow the examples she laid out for those who follow her, are so ardently against helping others and are more concerned with the societal evisceration of those less fortunate? They got that from RAND! We are all so happy you are self aware, now please feel free to go fuck yourself.
Ok, I'm willing to be corrected as regards to whether you've ever read any Rand. I did allow for those who did not understand her in my first post.
Putting aside the silliness of thinking that a politician really cares about your liberty or is honestly sharing his motives or aims, here's what I can find out about Le Vey who, I must confess I had practically forgotten about:
"When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him."
"Satanism encourages any form of sexual expression you may desire, so long as it hurts no one else."
"To the Satanist, martyrdom and non-personalized heroism is to be associated not with integrity, but with stupidity. This, of course, does not apply to the situations which involve the safety of a loved one. But to give one's own life for something as impersonal as a political or religious issue is the ultimate in masochism."
No offence, but it seems to me you pretty much see eye-to-eye with this guy.
Except maybe the part about not hurting the one you are using for sexual gratification.
I was hoping to catch him repeating the Wiccan formulation: "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt." but I think you can recognize the Golden Rule when you read it paraphrased.
And that is the essence of modern Libertarian thought so, OK.
BUT
Rand never called herself a libertarian. Check this out.
Now, if you've ever dewormed or deflead a dog you've practised Randism. That is, out of compassion for the dog you have prevented parasites from harming it.
Now in the case of worms and fleas the parasites are killed and I imagine without much remorse on your part.
Humans have other options than to get their living by sucking the blood of the productive and as cruel as it may sound, there are those who would insist that they try at least.
I guess you could charge Rand with not being compassionate enough to maintain someone in a shameful, meaningless and unproductive life as a burden and parasite. But then, she had this thing where she wanted to see human kind as heroic.
And in point of fact, Libertarianism doesn't forbid charity any more than Christianity. Both prescribe you giving your money to the poor - not somebody else's.
It's the "not somebody else's" part that makes the people who do hate Libertarianism hate it with such mindless rage.
So, if you are a Godless Communist, it makes perfect sense to hate Rand, If a Libertarian you can understand her, if a Satanist, respect her and if a Christian, love her.
And it is your very assertion and Rand's that spending someone else's money is wrong? With your argument, a member of a congregation, who thinks his tithe is going to feed the poor and needy, but doesn't take into account the incidentals of NEED, like transportation and paying for help dispensing said food(when needed) are not directly considered by the person tithing, but who in their right mind, would withhold assistance because the money donated isn't ONLY going to the purpose given?
Let's be absolutely crystal clear here...Rand HATED religion, she saw it as weak mindedness, just like Karl Marx. So who is more like the communist?
Rand's *teachings* are more survival of the fittest, shake off the weak and give them NO consideration. I find that reprehensible and it's sad that you don't see it. The lack of conscientiousness in Rand's diatribes are deplorable and any person espousing them, equally so.
If you are an atheist long enough, you eventually start to think that people who push religion ought to know better and are probably just in it for the money. This leads to the conclusion that it is all a damn lie. It's is only natural to hate a lie.
But then again, there is hate and there is HATE.
Do you ever read your blog?
I doubt that there is a single congregation in this Podunk little town who wouldn't happily roast you over a low fire and raffle off the chance to drive the spit.
It would be fair to say, at this point, that the defining difference between a typical Christian and the sane and decent man is this hatred of gay people.
Now the fact that the Bible, Koran and Torah all agree that gay people should be killed whenever and wherever they are found might have something to do with that.
If you never meet that fate, you will probably have some atheists to thank.
Doubtful, if they follow her path, like her, they'd shrug it off, because someone else's suffering is inconsequential and would consider them one less drain on the strong's resources. I do live in a rural redneck infested area, have had a few run ins over the years with those stupid enough to think my sexuality makes me an easy target. They learned differently. But truthfully, most treat others the same way the want to be treated and I'm more than happy to call them neighbor.
8 comments:
Actually, Rand really didn't care what people who never read her work thought about it. Or what people who didn't understand her work thought about it either. So she wouldn't sweat the endorsement of these two bozos or your attempt to tie them to her.
It's a pity, since she is not with us, that we won't be able to hear the verbal ass whipping she no doubt would have laid on you had she seen this.
As one of her drones, no doubt you believe that true.
I, on the other hand, choose freewill...carry on minion.
Really? You would choose free will?
All the more a pity that your knowledge of Rand is second hand.
My knowledge of Ayn Rand is from reading her books which are rife with self indulgent objectivism.
Case in point, my post...two diametrically opposed people (one a libertarian/conservative and the other the worshiper of Satan) embracing self actualization while being completely devoid of any concern for their fellow human beings.
Me, me, me isn't a revelation of truth it's wanton self indulgence at the expense of everyone else.
As for Rand giving me a "verbal ass whipping" I thought it was your assertion, that: "She wouldn't sweat the endorsement of these two bozos or your attempt to tie them to her."
Which is it, or are you incapable of making a decision?
Here, let me help you...Why is it that a Satanist and pseudo- religious conservative, who believe Rand speaks to them thru her work and follow the examples she laid out for those who follow her, are so ardently against helping others and are more concerned with the societal evisceration of those less fortunate?
They got that from RAND!
We are all so happy you are self aware, now please feel free to go fuck yourself.
Ok, I'm willing to be corrected as regards to whether you've ever read any Rand. I did allow for those who did not understand her in my first post.
Putting aside the silliness of thinking that a politician really cares about your liberty or is honestly sharing his motives or aims, here's what I can find out about Le Vey who, I must confess I had practically forgotten about:
(Wikiquote)
"When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him."
"Satanism encourages any form of sexual expression you may desire, so long as it hurts no one else."
"To the Satanist, martyrdom and non-personalized heroism is to be associated not with integrity, but with stupidity. This, of course, does not apply to the situations which involve the safety of a loved one. But to give one's own life for something as impersonal as a political or religious issue is the ultimate in masochism."
No offence, but it seems to me you pretty much see eye-to-eye with this guy.
Except maybe the part about not hurting the one you are using for sexual gratification.
I was hoping to catch him repeating the Wiccan formulation: "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt." but I think you can recognize the Golden Rule when you read it paraphrased.
And that is the essence of modern Libertarian thought so, OK.
BUT
Rand never called herself a libertarian. Check this out.
Now, if you've ever dewormed or deflead a dog you've practised Randism. That is, out of compassion for the dog you have prevented parasites from harming it.
Now in the case of worms and fleas the parasites are killed and I imagine without much remorse on your part.
Humans have other options than to get their living by sucking the blood of the productive and as cruel as it may sound, there are those who would insist that they try at least.
I guess you could charge Rand with not being compassionate enough to maintain someone in a shameful, meaningless and unproductive life as a burden and parasite. But then, she had this thing where she wanted to see human kind as heroic.
And in point of fact, Libertarianism doesn't forbid charity any more than Christianity. Both prescribe you giving your money to the poor - not somebody else's.
It's the "not somebody else's" part that makes the people who do hate Libertarianism hate it with such mindless rage.
So, if you are a Godless Communist, it makes perfect sense to hate Rand, If a Libertarian you can understand her, if a Satanist, respect her and if a Christian, love her.
Now, what was it you claimed to be?
And it is your very assertion and Rand's that spending someone else's money is wrong?
With your argument, a member of a congregation, who thinks his tithe is going to feed the poor and needy, but doesn't take into account the incidentals of NEED, like transportation and paying for help dispensing said food(when needed) are not directly considered by the person tithing, but who in their right mind, would withhold assistance because the money donated isn't ONLY going to the purpose given?
Let's be absolutely crystal clear here...Rand HATED religion, she saw it as weak mindedness, just like Karl Marx.
So who is more like the communist?
Rand's *teachings* are more survival of the fittest, shake off the weak and give them NO consideration.
I find that reprehensible and it's sad that you don't see it.
The lack of conscientiousness in Rand's diatribes are deplorable and any person espousing them, equally so.
"Rand HATED religion."
That doesn't make her a bad person.
If you are an atheist long enough, you eventually start to think that people who push religion ought to know better and are probably just in it for the money. This leads to the conclusion that it is all a damn lie. It's is only natural to hate a lie.
But then again, there is hate and there is HATE.
Do you ever read your blog?
I doubt that there is a single congregation in this Podunk little town who wouldn't happily roast you over a low fire and raffle off the chance to drive the spit.
It would be fair to say, at this point, that the defining difference between a typical Christian and the sane and decent man is this hatred of gay people.
Now the fact that the Bible, Koran and Torah all agree that gay people should be killed whenever and wherever they are found might have something to do with that.
If you never meet that fate, you will probably have some atheists to thank.
Maybe even Ayn Rand.
Doubtful, if they follow her path, like her, they'd shrug it off, because someone else's suffering is inconsequential and would consider them one less drain on the strong's resources.
I do live in a rural redneck infested area, have had a few run ins over the years with those stupid enough to think my sexuality makes me an easy target.
They learned differently.
But truthfully, most treat others the same way the want to be treated and I'm more than happy to call them neighbor.
Post a Comment